House of Commons

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 26 February 2020

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

1. What assessment he has made of the effect on low-income families of the roll-out of universal credit in Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

Universal credit was designed to simplify the system and ensure that payments reach those in need. We estimate that 700,000 more people will receive about £2.4 billion of unclaimed benefits through universal credit.

[Cat Smith]

Will the Government commit to ending the dehumanising work capability and personal independence payment assessments, which routinely find sick and disabled people fit for work, and commit to bring all these assessments in-house?

[Simon Hart]

I think all of us, on both sides of the House, recognise that the system does not always work as well as it should. We all have casework that would indicate that. Our ongoing commitment—indeed, I was doing this back in 2011—is to make sure that, where people do struggle with the system or fall through the gaps, we act quickly, efficiently and humanely. Any cases that the hon. Lady or other Members have where that is not happening, please raise them with us and we will take them up with the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the Welsh economy.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

The unemployment rate in Wales is at a record low. There are 144,000 more people in work in Wales than in 2010 and 90,000 fewer workless households. The Government are committed to driving further economic growth and levelling up across the UK, including west Wales.

[Stephen Crabb]

As we prepare to celebrate St David’s Day, now is a good moment to celebrate the enormous and excellent progress that has been made in reducing unemployment in Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is really encouraging is the fact that the long-term lag between Welsh employment levels and the UK average has now closed, with more people in Wales going out to work than ever before?

[Simon Hart]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising this issue. He will be as pleased as I am that the figures in his own constituency, when compared with 2010, are as good as they are. It is absolutely right that the Government’s job, in collaboration with the Welsh Government if that is necessary, is to ensure we create the circumstances where that trend continues. He has my absolute assurance that that will be the case.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State provide the House with specific details on how many people have been affected by the catastrophic flood damage to residential properties and businesses across Wales, and exactly how much has been lost to the Welsh economy so far?

[Simon Hart]

I should start by saying that, during the visits to flooded areas made last week by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I, we were, as one would expect, completely bowled over by the professionalism, resilience, determination and expertise of numerous agencies and individuals in coming to terms and dealing with the particular problem the hon. Lady raises. She should, I hope, be pleased to know that I have had a number of meetings with the Welsh Government and council leaders in areas affected by these unusual—unfortunately, not as unusual as we would like—weather events. It is fair to say that the Welsh Government are still assessing the extent of the damage and exactly what is necessary by way of rectification. We have said, and we will repeat our commitment, that when the Welsh Government come to us with absolutely watertight figures and explain exactly what they need from us, we are ready to help in whatever way we can.

[Christina Rees]

First Minister Mark Drakeford and his Welsh Government Ministers have visited flood victims and have already pledged an initial £10 million from the Welsh Government’s severely restricted budget after 10 years of Tory cuts. Yet last month, at short notice, the Treasury took back £200 million from the Welsh Government because of recalculations of Barnett consequentials. The Prime Minister has not bothered to visit flood victims in Wales, but could he at least return that money to the Welsh Government to help to clean up the damage?

[Simon Hart]

I have to say that, if I was a business or individual affected by the events of the last few days, the last thing I would expect to hear in this House is the politicisation of a very difficult situation. The conversations I have had in face-to-face meetings with First Minister Drakeford in Cardiff have been constructive. He has at no stage made the observations the hon. Lady has made to me. We have made it absolutely clear that as soon as the damage is assessed we are ready to assist, notwithstanding the fact that this is a devolved responsibility, and it is absolutely right that we as a UK Government should respect the devolution settlement. I will just finish by saying that local authority leaders—[Interruption.] I will leave it at that point.

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

HS2 will do next to nothing for north Wales and worse than nothing for south Wales. Yet only six miles of HS2 railway line will cost more than the crucial, first-of-its-kind tidal lagoon in Swansea, rejected by the Minister’s Tory Government. I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that low-carbon electricity generated in Wales should power the transport of the future. What will he do to get Wales-wide tidal lagoon projects back on track?

[Simon Hart]

As the right hon. Lady knows—she may even have been at the debate that I hosted in this Chamber where we discussed the matter into the early hours of the morning—it is undisputed that a tidal lagoon has a future in the UK, and in particular in Wales. The difficulty that we had over the tidal lagoon project in Swansea was in relation to the company proposal itself. So I hope that she can be reassured that this is part of the energy mix—it is part of the renewable commitment that we have made. The tidal lagoon is still under discussion.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating Wales Week co-founders Dan Langford and Mike Jordan on again providing excellent opportunities to celebrate Welsh business and culture in London and 21 other places around the world. I am sure the Minister will also agree that his Government have a crucial part to play in supporting Welsh businesses by ensuring that they are not undermined by future trade negotiations. Will he reassure us that, in pursuit of trade agreements with both Trump’s America and our nearest trading market, the EU, the Government will not trade off Welsh animal welfare and food standards in favour of chlorinated chicken?

[Simon Hart]

I can absolutely offer that guarantee; it is a repeat of the guarantee that has been offered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and, indeed, the Prime Minister himself.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

A lot of the strength of the mid-Wales economy is predicated on trade with border towns such as Shrewsbury, which is currently very badly flooded. Does the Minister accept that more needs to be done between his Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to work together to alleviate the terrible problems of flooding on both sides of our border?

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The answer is yes. The answer lies in greater collaboration and co-operation across a wide range of agencies, and even those that he has mentioned. I believe we are learning some stark and important lessons from this, and I agree with his assessment.

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

3. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on the Welsh economy of regulatory divergence from the EU.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

4. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits for Welsh businesses of regulatory divergence from the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

Far from lowering standards, the UK already exceeds the EU minimum requirements in several areas, including on workers’ rights and environmental targets. We will continue in that vein, with an independent trade policy, and in so doing, unleash the enormous potential of the UK and Welsh economies.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Over 60% of Welsh exports are destined for the EU and dominated by key industries vulnerable to divergence related to trade barriers—agricultural machinery and transport equipment, to name but two. So instead of actively trying to circumvent the Prime Minister’s own withdrawal agreement, why are not the Government pursuing the regulatory alignment that is crucial for Welsh businesses and exporters?

[David T. C. Davies]

We of course voted to leave the European Union, and that meant voting to leave the customs union and voting to leave the single market. I am quite surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s question, because I should have thought that he would be the first to agree with me that a nation that leaves a union will want full control of its regulatory and trade policy. That is a matter of principle, which I would have expected he and his colleagues to be in full agreement with.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I share the Minister’s enthusiasm that we can now exceed EU regulations—that is, have better regulations than those set by the EU. Does he agree, though, that the Government’s agenda is proof of our commitment to maintaining the existing high standards that are independent of EU law, and that it is not only businesses that could benefit from that regulatory divergence?

[David T. C. Davies]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Outside the European Union, we are looking forward to exercising the freedom to set some of the highest standards in the world on animal welfare, health and safety and workers’ rights, thus making Britain one of the best places in the world in which to live, work and invest.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Tomorrow, the Government will publish their position on the EU trade negotiations. That is of particular importance to the automotive sector in Wales. Just to give the Minister an example, if there were to be 5% tariffs on import/exports and 2.5% on components, it could add £1,000 to the costs of production on a car and put jobs at risk. So can he confirm that the Government are seeking tariff-free access for the automotive sector to the single market and that, if that is not obtained, the Government will have a contingency plan in place to support jobs in that sector in Wales?

[David T. C. Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of the automotive sector to south Wales and he is correct in saying that the Government are seeking a full free trade arrangement that will allow full access to the European market. If for any reason the EU does not realise that that is in its interests—it exports more cars and automotive parts to us than we do to the EU—I cannot absolutely say what will happen, but it will be at the forefront of my mind and the minds of all my colleagues that we would want to support the automotive industry in south Wales.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of cross-border transport links between Wales and (a) Reading, (b) Farnborough, (c) Guildford and (d) Gatwick Airport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

Earlier this week, we announced 2,000 extra weekday seats on CrossCountry trains between Cardiff and the midlands. We have already reduced journey times by 14 minutes on the Great Western main line between Swansea and London, and connectivity to north Wales will benefit from the introduction of HS2, which will shorten journey times and drive economic growth throughout the region.

[Mr Jayawardena]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As well as rail links—not just the ones he mentioned, but the offshoots from the Great Western line to Guildford and Gatwick—does he agree that to unleash Wales’ potential it will be critical to improve links between the M3 and M4, as Transport for the South East has recently recommended?

[David T. C. Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of the road network, particularly the M4, to increasing economic productivity in Wales. I hope that Labour Members are aware of the importance of the M4 and will encourage the Welsh Labour Government to accept the borrowing made available to them to build the M4 relief road in south Wales.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

The western rail link to Heathrow would really help people travelling from Heathrow to south Wales and could get passengers from Reading to Heathrow in less than 30 minutes, but progress has been badly delayed. When will the construction work on the line properly begin?

[David T. C. Davies]

I am unable to say when exactly it will begin, but I can assure the hon. Member that it is our policy to make sure it begins. I fully recognise the importance of the links between Heathrow and Reading and the importance of that for the rail network across Wales, which will see £1.5 billion spent on it during control period 6. Overall, he will welcome the fact that we are making the biggest investment in our rail infrastructure in the country since Victorian times.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

6. If he will hold discussions with the Welsh Government on the potential merits of the creation of a UK bank holiday on 23 June each year.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

As this is a reserved matter and is currently not Government policy, I have no plans to discuss this with the Welsh Government.

[Mr Bone]

Well, the Secretary of State needs to change his mind. Wales has one of the lowest numbers of bank holidays in Europe. Some countries in Europe have twice the number. What has he got against giving workers in Wales an extra day off?

[Simon Hart]

I suppose this was inevitable in a way. My experience of businesses and residents in Wales is simple: they have an exciting future and are keen to get on with the new opportunities that face them. They do not request or want extra opportunities to reminisce about the past.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Secretary of State to reply to Question 7. [Interruption.]. Minister or Secretary of State? [Hon. Members: “Get on with it!”] Someone answer the question. It is Question 7 from John Spellar.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to encourage public bodies in Wales to buy British goods, products and services.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

Apologies, Mr Speaker, for the novice performance from the Front Bench.

Now is an excellent opportunity for public bodies, Departments such as the Ministry of Defence and the NHS to buy British goods, products and services. Projects such as the £500 million F-35 repair programme in north Wales and the 2 million tonnes of steel needed for HS2 have the potential to level up regions and strengthen the Union.

[John Spellar]

In an answer a few minutes ago, the Secretary of State’s ministerial colleague was extolling the importance of the automotive industry to Wales, yet Welsh police forces are buying heavily from France and Germany. Given that we have come out of the EU, should we not be taking the opportunity in that sector and across public procurement to support British jobs and workers?

[Simon Hart]

I can completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and that opportunity is now simpler, given that we have left the EU. Our job here and with the Welsh Government is to make sure that those procurement rules reflect the fantastic products Wales has to offer.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

Welsh construction and civil engineering firms frequently complain that EU procurement regulations effectively preclude them from bidding for contracts in Wales. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, when we have completed the transitional process, everything possible will be done to ensure that Welsh firms have the chance to bid for those contracts?

[Simon Hart]

Absolutely. I could not agree with my right hon. Friend more. That is one of the great benefits of leaving the European Union.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

If we want to maximise the benefits of HS2 for Wales, which will require about 3 million tonnes of steel and new high-speed trains, will the Secretary of State lobby the Department for Transport to procure Welsh and UK steel and trains from CAF in Newport for the project?

[Simon Hart]

Yes, that will definitely be an objective of the UK Government. As the hon. Lady knows, we take the future of the steel industry in Wales extremely seriously, and I want to ensure that every opportunity it has to contribute to UK infrastructure projects is taken.

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Crickhowell, in my constituency, was badly affected by last week’s floods, and we have a lot of small businesses struggling to get back on their feet. Along with public bodies, will the Secretary of State join me in urging all consumers to buy British and buy local?

[Simon Hart]

I know that my hon. Friend’s constituency was particularly hard hit by recent weather events, and her recognition of that is to be commended. I also completely agree that everything we need to do as a UK Government, in collaboration with our colleagues in Cardiff—I keep making this point—will deliver the sort of result that she is seeking.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

We know that for every pound spent with a small or medium-sized enterprise 63p is re-spent in the local area, as opposed to some 40p for every pound spent with a larger chain or business. What steps will the Government take to enable public bodies in Wales to buy more local goods, products and services?

[Simon Hart]

Part of the problem has been caused by the restrictions imposed on us by our relationship with Europe. The change in those terms will free up the opportunity for the UK and Welsh Governments to ensure that procurement rules are changed as well, and to unpick the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking with the Welsh Government to strengthen cross-border working.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

I have already held constructive discussions with Welsh Government Ministers on various issues, including cities and regional growth deals, which have the potential to create jobs and economic growth in Wales and strengthen cross-border working to benefit both sides of the border.

[Robin Millar]

Many residents of Aberconwy, and, indeed, north Wales as a whole, rely on good road and rail links along the north Wales coast. Does the Minister recognise the importance of that east-west axis and the connections that it offers with England so that people can have contact with families, public services, work and, dare I say, even the Crewe hub as part of HS2?

[David T. C. Davies]

We certainly recognise the importance of those east-west links in both north and south Wales, as will be clear from the improvements in the rail and road infrastructure and the growth deals. I recently had a chance to see cross-border working in action when Dŵr Cymru was taking water in from English counties in order to ensure that fresh water continued to run in Monmouth after the floods, and I pay tribute to it for that, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we will recognise the importance and benefits of cross-border working because we are a Unionist party.

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

As the Secretary of State will know, Henry VII landed next door to his constituency, and he grew up in in Raglan Castle, in the Minister’s constituency. He then gained the crown at Bosworth Field, which brought about the Tudor dynasty. Has the Minister considered promoting the history of our modern royal family by creating a Henry VII trail?

[David T. C. Davies]

That is an excellent and interesting idea. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an expert on sporting history and the contribution that boxing has made in Wales, but I had not realised that he was also interested in Tudor history. I look forward to discussing that with him outside the Chamber.

[Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend said that he recognised the east-west links between north and south Wales and England, but links with mid-Wales are also important. The Cambrian line—the Shrewsbury-to-Aberystwyth line—needs a signalling upgrade. Will he convene a meeting with me and other interested parties?

[David T. C. Davies]

It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend, who has done a fantastic job in lobbying for better east-west links in his own constituency, and I shall look forward with interest to hearing what he has to say. No doubt those in the Treasury and the Department for Transport will also take a keen in interest in the subject.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Wales took the brunt of the storm last week, and hundreds of people in my constituency lost absolutely everything, because they have had to make a choice between buying food and paying the insurance bill, and they are completely uninsured. Rhondda Cynon Taff Council alone—just one local authority—is going to have a bill of £30 million. What is the point of a United Kingdom if the United Kingdom will not stand by Wales financially when we really need it?

[David T. C. Davies]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said, he has had meetings with the First Minister. At the moment, there is no way of knowing exactly what the cost of those floods will be—I know that the chief executive of Monmouthshire was unable to tell me—except that it will run into millions of pounds. We have already moved to ensure that people who receive compensation will not see any impact on their benefits. We absolutely stand with Wales, but as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it would be impossible for us to go marching into Wales to tell the Welsh Government what to do in what is a devolved area. We stand ready to support the Welsh Government in any way, but they need to come forward with a set of costs and explain exactly how that money will be spent.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on the Government’s support for victims of sexual violence in Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

I am proud that this Government have recently announced that victims of rape and sexual assault will be helped by a 50% funding boost for specialist support services. That will provide additional funding for the vital services offered at six rape support centres across Wales.

[Virginia Crosbie]

I welcome the Government’s announcement, which will go some way towards ensuring that more people receive the support and advice that they need in order to recover. I am also pleased to hear that two of the support centres that will benefit from this funding are in north Wales. In November last year, the Wales Audit Office reported that victims and survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence were being let down by inconsistent, complex and short-term services in Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to work towards having a Wales where no one is turned away?

[Simon Hart]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is the shared ambition and intention of the UK Government. May I also commend her for bringing this matter to the House’s attention? There are few more important issues facing us at the moment.

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

Last year, thousands of cases of revenge porn were brought forward to the police in Wales, but only a handful of those cases went to court, because victims do not have the advantage of anonymity and also have to prove malicious intent. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he has discussions with the relevant Minister on the forthcoming online harms Bill, so that the problem of women in particular being subjected to internet porn—basically, pornography being thrown out on to the internet without their consent—is sorted out properly?

[Simon Hart]

I can absolutely offer that guarantee.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the future of military bases in Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

I was fortunate enough to visit St Athan last week, where I met my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and military personnel. My officials have been working closely with Ministry of Defence and Welsh Government officials to secure the future of bases in Wales, and they are making good progress with St Athan.

[Alun Cairns]

MOD St Athan has been designated a key element of the defence estate across the United Kingdom, but the Welsh Government are refusing our armed forces ongoing use of their existing site. Will the Secretary of State impress on the First Minister the importance not only of the economic benefits that the armed forces bring to the community but of the role that they play in the defence of our nation?

[Simon Hart]

I can absolutely offer that guarantee, and I can go a little bit further. The blockage between the MOD and the Welsh Government has started to loosen, and there now seems to be some progress. I very much hope that we can achieve the objective that my right hon. Friend wants, which is a substantial military footprint at St Athan.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on improving cross-border rail services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

The Secretary of State for Wales is due to meet the Secretary for State for Transport in the coming weeks, when they will discuss how we can build on the new superfast rail service between south Wales and London and the improved connectivity that HS2 will bring to north Wales.

[Stephen Doughty]

Of course, I am talking about south Wales, and I am sure that the Minister will welcome the support that the Welsh Labour Government are giving to the St Mellons parkway project to the east of Cardiff. Will he ensure, in his discussions with the Secretary of State for Transport, that as many GWR cross-border services as possible can stop there, as well as services from competitors?

[David T. C. Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I would be happy to discuss it with him. I can absolutely assure him of our commitment to rail infrastructure in south Wales as well as in north Wales, which is why we have spent an extra £1.5 billion during this control period and laid on thousands of extra seats between London and south Wales.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

12. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the location of an accessible personal independence payment assessment centre for disabled and vulnerable claimants in north-west Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

I have written to the relevant DWP Minister, and I know that he has plans to meet local MPs to discuss assessment centre access in the region. The Government will support Capita to ensure that it finds a suitable, long-term site in north Wales.

[Hywel Williams]

The disability centre, which moved to Rhyl without consultation, is now back in Bangor in my constituency, housed temporarily in a museum. Does the Secretary of State agree that that would also be an apt location for the Government’s disability benefits system?

[Simon Hart]

I agree; I have taken the hon. Gentleman’s observations seriously. The situation has not been satisfactory in parts, but I hope that there is now some movement in a positive direction.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 February.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

The whole House will want to join me in extending our condolences to the families and friends of those who sadly lost their lives as a result of Storm Ciara and Storm Dennis. We will also want to thank all those who are providing support to tackle the impact of the storms, including the Environment Agency, local authorities, our emergency services and our armed forces.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Philip Dunne]

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s thanks to all those helping in the aftermath of Storm Dennis—[Interruption.] It has brought record high water levels in the Rivers Severn and Trent, and over 100 properties in my constituency have been flooded, bringing misery to those affected. As we speak, the Severn has just breached its banks at Bridgnorth. Will the Prime Minister use his influence in the Budget and in the comprehensive spending review later this year to increase infrastructure spending on flood defences for at-risk communities as part of his determination, in this year of COP26, to show global leadership in taking action on climate change adaptation and mitigation?

[The Prime Minister]

Indeed I can, and I thank my right hon. Friend. We have been ensuring that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is able to extend the Bellwin scheme where appropriate. Of course, we are also investing massively in flood defences—£2.6 billion has already gone in and, as he knows, we have pledged to commit another £4 billion to defend this country against flooding.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

My thoughts are with those across the world who are suffering from the coronavirus. I praise medical and emergency staff all over the world for what they are doing to try to stop the spread of the disease. I hope that public health services in Britain will get the resources they need; there is an urgent question on this topic after Prime Minister’s Question Time—[Hon. Members: “It is a statement.”]

Thousands of people across the country are still struggling with the devastating impact of the floods. I pay tribute to the work of the Environment Agency, the Scottish and Welsh Governments, council staff, the fire service, and the huge number of community volunteers who have pitched in to help their neighbours. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Conservative leader of Derbyshire County Council that he has turned his back on the people affected by the floods?

[The Prime Minister]

Since the flooding began, this Government have been working flat out night and day to ensure that the people of this country get the support they need. We have activated the Bellwin scheme, ensured that businesses get the rate relief that they need and, as I told the House just now, put £2.6 billion into flood defences, with £4 billion more to come.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

“You can’t give local authorities the clear message you are going to support them and then turn your back on them”—not my words, but the words of a Conservative council leader. When I visited Pontypridd last week, I saw at first hand the damage and destruction that the floods have caused to people’s lives, homes and businesses, but the Prime Minister was silent, sulking in his grace-and-favour mansion in Chevening. After two weeks of flooding, memes are being produced, asking not, “Where’s Wally?” but, “Where’s Boris?” When is he going to stop hiding and show people that he actually cares, or is he too busy going about some other business? If he is too busy, he could send his chief adviser, Dominic Cummings. I am sure that he would be very well received in all the flooded areas.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very proud of the response that the Government have mounted over the past few days. We convened the national flood response centre on 14 February. Since the flooding began, there has been a constant stream of ministerial activity led by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Housing, Communities and Local Government. No one should underestimate the anguish that flooding causes, and of course it is an absolute shock to the households that are affected, but it is thanks to the measures that this Government have put in place that 200,000 households have been protected from flooding. We do not hear that from the right hon. Member.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

During the election campaign, I wrote to the Prime Minister demanding that Cobra be convened to deal with the floods at that time. He very reluctantly agreed and eventually did call a meeting of Cobra. The situation across the country is now even worse than it was then, and no Cobra meeting has been called. Is he just pretending to care when he does not really care at all, because there are no votes on the line at this moment?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, there has been a stream of ministerial meetings since the flooding began. The national flood response centre was convened on 14 February, and I have been directing things, as he perfectly knows. Cobra is a reference to Cabinet Office briefing room A, which is not the only room in which meetings can take place.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The issue is very serious for people around the country whose homes are being flooded. They need help and support. They do not need trite answers like that from their Prime Minister.

Time and again, communities and lives are being put at risk and the Government simply refuse to acknowledge the scale of the problem. Does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who said the Government have done “precious little” to stop the floods happening again?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me repeat for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman that this Government have a fantastic record of investing in flood defences and will continue to do so. The reason we can do so, the reason we have been able to commit £2.6 billion for flood defences and the reason we are able to pledge another £4 billion is because this Government are running a strong, successful and robust economy, which he would ruin.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

If that is the case, why are the Government investing less than half the money the Environment Agency of England says is necessary to improve flood defences across the country? It says that £5.6 billion is needed. So far as I am aware, the Government are investing less than half of that.

I have visited many areas and many households, and do you know what, I have learned a lot from visiting the victims of floods—the Prime Minister should try it one day. They have told me that they cannot afford the insurance on their homes, as costs have skyrocketed. Recent studies have shown that 20,000 homes are not protected by the Government’s insurance scheme and are also not protected by flood defences. That is 20,000 homes with no insurance and in danger of being flooded imminently. Is it not time that the Prime Minister found a very urgent solution to this problem?

Just imagine what it is like to live in a home that is in danger of being flooded when you cannot get it insured and, if you own it, you cannot sell it or cannot move—you are totally stuck. They are looking for the Government to help them out at their time of crisis.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in the sense that there are particular problems to do with insurance, as anybody who has visited a flood-affected household will know. Flood Re, on the other hand, has provided cover for over 164,000 households since 2018-19.

Since last December’s events, we are now looking at what we can do to protect households that do not have proper insurance, but the right hon. Gentleman also knows that there are measures in place to ensure that householders get £500 and £5,000 to compensate themselves for the worst damage that flooding can do. That is cash we can put in thanks to the investment we have made in flood defences, which, believe me, would be beyond the capacity of any Government led by the right hon. Member.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Welsh Government have done their best to step up to the crisis, despite the underfunding from Westminster. The Prime Minister was keen to pose for cameras when there was a crisis on during the election, but he often goes AWOL: he was late to respond to the London riots because he was on holiday; he was on a private island when the Iranian general was assassinated; and last week he had his head in the sand in a mansion in Kent. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), another of his colleagues, said that it “is not good enough”. How can the country trust a Prime Minister, a part-time Prime Minister, who last night was schmoozing Tory party donors at a very expensive black-tie ball instead of getting out there and supporting the people who are suffering because of the floods? This Government need to step up to the plate, invest in defences and ensure that there is real insurance for people whose homes are being ruined by these floods as we speak.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman asks what this Government have been doing in the past few days, so let me tell him. Not only have we been investing massively in flood defences and compensating those who have suffered from flooding, but we have been stopping the early release of terrorists; we have restored the nurses’ bursary; we are beginning work on 40 new hospitals; and we are recruiting 20,000 more police officers. We can do that because we have a strong and dynamic economy, with employment at record highs, unemployment down to the lowest levels since the early ’70s, wages going up and home ownership up. What are the Opposition doing? They are still deciding—[Interruption.] Listen to them jabbering away.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we will have a little more silence on the second row.

[The Prime Minister]

Quite right, Mr Speaker. They are jabbering away, because they still cannot decide whether or not they want to be in the European Union, and the hottest topic of debate in the Labour party is what job the right hon. Gentleman should have in the shadow Cabinet after the leadership election. They are engaging themselves in narcissistic debate about the Labour party. We are getting on in delivering on the people’s priorities.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Q5. The Prime Minister will be aware of the concern in settled rural communities such as those in my constituency because of the intentional unauthorised development of Traveller sites. That leads to large numbers of lorries and caravans coming on to land where there is no planning permission and, subsequently, the ignoring of enforcement when the local authority tries to intervene. The Government have said that they will bring forward measures to try to tackle these planning issues. Will the Prime Minister put his authority behind this and get it sorted out?

[The Prime Minister]

I take that issue very seriously, and I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for raising it. We are giving local authorities more powers to reject intentional unauthorised development, and we will consulting on the details of those proposals in a forthcoming White Paper. I hope he will contribute to those consultations.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

This week, we learned that 40% of small businesses in Scotland employ more than one EU national. Immigration is crucial for Scotland’s economy, so it is no wonder that the Scottish Government’s proposals for a Scottish visa system have been universally welcomed by businesses and charities alike—even the Scottish Tories think it is a good idea. The Prime Minister rejected these proposals within a few short hours. Does he now admit that that was a mistake?

[The Prime Minister]

It was not only I who rejected the proposals, but, of course, the Migration Advisory Committee. That is because we are bringing forward a very sensible proposal, which the people of this country have long desired, whereby we take back control of our immigration system with a points-based system. The right hon. Gentleman has important concerns to raise, and we will ensure that everywhere in this country—all businesses, all agricultural sectors and all the fishing communities of this country—will be able to access the labour and the workforce that is needed, under our points-based system. But what would be the height of insanity would be to proceed with the Scottish National party’s solution of a border at Berwick between England and Scotland.

[Ian Blackford]

Once again, the Prime Minister shows that he is utterly delusional. Let us look at the reality: Scottish Care has said that the Prime Minister’s damaging immigration plans “shut the door” on enabling people to be cared for in their own home. The general secretary of the GMB union says that the plans

“could genuinely tip some businesses over the edge.”

Scotland’s National Farmers Union says that its evidence has been “disregarded” by the UK Government. The Scottish Tourism Alliance says that the plans will have a devastating impact on Scotland’s workforce. Senior figures in the UK Government have said that what the Scottish Parliament decides “doesn’t matter one jot”; if the Prime Minister thinks that the Scottish Parliament does not matter, do Scottish businesses matter?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course Scottish businesses matter, and the way to do well by them would not be to tax them with the highest tax rates in the UK; it would be to run a sound economy in Scotland and to have an educational system that does not leave Scottish children lagging behind through no fault of their own. This Government will get on and deliver a working immigration system for the whole of this country. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman shouts at me from a sedentary position, but he would be better off getting on with delivering for the people of Scotland, rather than continuing with his ceaseless and vain quest to break up the United Kingdom, because he will not succeed.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Q7. This is a Government who are delivering for the people, so I am sure the Prime Minister shares my concerns about the delay in the delivery of the Maidstone East line, which runs through my constituency and others. Will he intervene to ensure that there are no further delays on this vital railway line?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for rightly raising the issue of rail connections between Maidstone East and the City. In addition to the £48 billion we are putting into the railways, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has just indicated to me that those connections are his highest priority.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Q2.   Graham was born with cerebral palsy, unable to talk, walk or feed himself. He brought joy and love to all who knew him. Last week, one of the Prime Minister’s advisers resigned when a basic check of their internet history revealed that they had promoted eugenicist policies—the sort that would have ended my brother Graham Docherty’s life before it began. Will the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom advise the House and every disabled person on this island why Andrew Sabisky remained at the heart of his Government and was not removed from their position immediately when their abhorrent views became apparent?

[The Prime Minister]

Let us be absolutely clear that I certainly do not share those views, and nor are they the views of anybody in this Government. That individual no longer works for the Government.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)]

Q9. Does the Prime Minister agree that through the establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection, which will hold this and future Governments to their environmental commitments, it is the Conservatives who are driving the environmental agenda? Will he join me in commending the Conservative-led Solihull Borough Council for its commitment to be carbon neutral by 2030?

[The Prime Minister]

It of course brings me great joy to congratulate Solihull Borough Council on its path-breaking leadership. The council is of course following in the footsteps of the national Government and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who led the way in setting a target for carbon zero by 2050. This Conservative Government are going to leave our country and our environment in a better state for the next generation.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Q3. I have a pregnant constituent with her due date in the next couple of weeks. She is currently on universal credit, and after deductions, including for an advance, she is left with the grand sum of £111 a month to feed herself, heat her home and prepare for her child. I know that the Prime Minister will likely want more details about this case, and we will be happy to help, but I want to ask him whether, in principle, as the Prime Minister, he thinks that £111 a month is enough for anyone to live on.

[The Prime Minister]

I am of course very happy indeed to look at that case and for us to do whatever we can to help with that individual case, but I must say to the hon. Lady that, in the round, universal credit has helped and is helping 200,000 people into work. An estimated 1 million disabled households will get around £100 more per month as a result of universal credit. I am proud to stand by our record of helping people into work and off welfare. As I said before, I am more than happy to look at the case—

[Mhairi Black]

Answer the question.

[The Prime Minister]

The answer to her question, in a word, is no.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

Q11. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Mansfield who, like many millions across the country, previously voted Labour but have now put their faith in a Conservative Government to deliver are not, in fact, traitors, as they were branded by members of the Opposition this week? In fact, this Government and Conservative Members respect these hard-working people and their communities and respect their choices and we will deliver for them.

[The Prime Minister]

I am not going to comment on the vituperation that is meted out by the Opposition party, but what I will say is that all voters should be treated with respect and with humility. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the hard work that he is doing for the people of Mansfield: £10 million for West Nottinghamshire College; £20 million for road improvements; £5 million for proactive lung-health screenings; and up to £50 million in a new town deal and future high streets fund. In my view, the people of Mansfield are well served by him.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

Q4. Like many other sub-postmasters, my constituent Chris Head was victim to the Post Office Horizon IT system scandal. These errors have resulted in bankruptcies, imprisonment and even suicide. Will the Prime Minister today assure Chris and others that he will commit to launching an independent inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

I am indeed aware of the scandal to which the hon. Lady alludes and the disaster that has befallen many Post Office workers—I have met some of them myself. I am happy to commit to getting to the bottom of the matter in the way that she recommends.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

Q13. For someone living in one of the rural villages in my constituency, it can take a whole day to travel to and from a hospital appointment, because bus services are so few and far between. As a fellow bus enthusiast, will my right hon. Friend assure me that some of the £5 billion in the pipeline for bus services will go towards improving routes in Penistone and Stocksbridge?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the vital importance of buses and their transformative power, but as for the detail about what will happen in Penistone and Stocksbridge, she will have to await the upcoming national bus strategy, which will be along very shortly.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Q6. Before the previous successful climate change talks in 2015 in Paris, I led the British preparations, including the delegations, of the three preceding UN climate talks. Global action on climate change only happens when the host nation engages with the world’s largest nations in advance at the highest political level. As the host of the 2020 climate talks, will the Prime Minister today publicly commit himself to meeting President Xi of China, Prime Minister Modi of India and US President Trump to secure for the Glasgow talks global action on the climate emergency?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I can tell him and the House that, of course, I have engaged—just last week—with President Xi of China, repeatedly with Prime Minister Modi of India and also, of course, with President Trump on this subject, but there will be an intensifying drumbeat of activity in the run-up to Glasgow.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will no doubt remember with the same fondness the conversations that we had when he was outlining his plan for global Britain. I welcome very much what he has been saying about the defence review that is now planned and his priority on having a strategy first foreign policy-led review. Will he please make a statement to this House so that the views of this House can be heard, bringing together trade, aid, foreign affairs and, of course, defence?

[The Prime Minister]

I can, of course, give that commitment when the moment is right.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Q8. The Prime Minister has a laundry list of climate promises. No doubt he will read them out shortly, but he cannot escape the fact that, on current rate of progress, net zero will not be reached until 2099—not the 2050 that he claims, let alone the 2030 that we probably need. Even J. P. Morgan says that human life, as we know it, is under threat. The Prime Minister cannot be a climate denier, can he, so when will he take climate crisis seriously?

[The Prime Minister]

These are not promises: these are what we have already done. It is thanks to Conservative action on climate change that we have reduced CO₂ output by 43% on 1990 levels since 2010, and the economy has grown by 73%. Some 99% of all the solar panels installed in this country have happened under this Conservative Government. In 1990, this country was 70% dependent on coal: today, it is 3%—and Labour would reopen the coalmines.

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

John Downey, the IRA terrorist responsible for the Hyde Park bombing in 1982, which killed 11 soldiers, received a letter of comfort from the Government and his trial collapsed. Corporal Dennis Hutchings received a letter in 1974 saying that he would not be prosecuted in connection with a shooting incident that took place in Northern Ireland. He was then investigated again in 2011 and told there were no further grounds for taking any action. Does the Prime Minister accept that if Dennis Hutchings goes to trial on 9 March, all the assurances, promises and manifesto commitments will amount to nothing more than meaningless empty platitudes?

[The Prime Minister]

It is to rectify matters such as the one to which my hon. Friend draws the House’s attention that this Government are finally bringing in a law to prevent the vexatious prosecution of our hard-working, hard-serving veterans when no new evidence has been produced.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Q10. Yesterday’s press showed the widening health inequalities between the richest and poorest. The money promised to Epsom and St Helier trust could have addressed that issue in my area, but instead the NHS is removing services from the poorest areas and sending them to leafy Belmont, which has the longest life expectancy. St Helier Hospital will become a glorified walk-in centre—no A&E, no maternity unit, no children’s services and 62% of beds gone. Will the Prime Minister reassure me that he will look at this to show that much does not have to always get more?

[The Prime Minister]

In addition to the 40 new hospitals that we are building—[Interruption.] Yes. As part of the £33.9 billion initial investment that we are making—the record investment that we are making in the NHS—I can tell the hon. Lady that Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust will receive £500 million to redevelop its estate and world-class facilities on that site.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister promise to resist in all circumstances the sell-out of our fishing communities, so that we can ensure that on 1 January next year we take back control of our fishing waters and become an independent coastal state once again?

[The Prime Minister]

I will indeed, and I hope that my right hon. Friend’s words were listened to very carefully by members of the Scottish National party, because they would hand back control of our fishing to Brussels.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

Q12. There are families and businesses in my constituency who have been left devastated after Storm Dennis tore through their properties. The strength of our Union is based on sharing resources at people’s time of need, but so far not a penny announced by the United Kingdom Government would benefit Wales, where the cost of repair will be hundreds of millions of pounds. The Prime Minister talks the talk on the Union, but will he today give a cast-iron guarantee that he will provide the major new funding that Wales needs to recover from the floods?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of flooding in Wales. Of course it is a devolved matter, but none the less the Government are committed to working flat out with the Welsh Administration to ensure that everybody gets the flood relief that they need. Yes, of course, that cash certainly will be passported through.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Dudley is set to receive £25 million investment via the Government’s towns fund, and we are looking to use the money to secure a university campus near the town centre. Will the Prime Minister lend his support to this scheme in order to level up and generate greater opportunity for Dudley people and the greater Black Country?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to champion Dudley and the Black Country, and I will certainly look at what I can do—is it to be there in person? Is that what he is asking for?

[Marco Longhi]

indicated assent.

[The Prime Minister]

Be careful what you wish for! I will look at what I can do to be there in person and support what sounds like an excellent scheme.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Q14. As we have seen today, religious intolerance in India is on the rise—whether through the anti-Muslim citizenship laws, or Christians whose prayer meetings are disturbed and who are then subjected to brutal beatings. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and representatives from Christian Solidarity Worldwide to look more closely at the issue and ensure that India upholds freedom of religion or belief?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises a crucial issue that I am particularly concerned to defend and advance. That is why I was pleased to appoint my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) as our special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss protecting those of a Christian faith in India and around the world.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will know of the appalling misery that the residents of Shrewsbury are facing, with the deluge of floods that have affected our town. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who is the Minister for flooding, is visiting Shrewsbury tomorrow; she is doing an excellent job. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the proposals put forward to the Government for a more holistic approach to managing the River Severn are looked at seriously because Shrewsbury cannot continue to suffer this level of economic damage, with repeated floods?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the concerns of the people of Shrewsbury. Everybody can see how serious the problem now is with the Severn. I will ensure that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, working with the Environment Agency, takes the necessary steps.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Q15. Sir Michael Marmot’s damning findings outline the devastating impact that a decade of this Government’s cuts has had on a constituency such as mine in Gateshead. Since 2010, Gateshead Council’s spending power has been cut in real terms by around 50%, or £160 million a year. Our local safety net has been removed. What does the Prime Minister intend to do as a matter of urgency to reduce the stark and worsening health and life expectancy inequality between north and south, rich and poor, so that people in the poorest areas of my constituency can expect to live as healthily and as long as those in the most affluent areas of his constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

Actually, I have the highest respect for Professor Marmot and did a lot of work with him in London—we did a huge amount there to reduce health inequalities and inequalities in life expectancy—but I do not deny that there is more to be done. That is why this Government are absolutely committed to uniting and levelling up across our country, with the biggest ever investments in the NHS and massive investments in education and early years provision. I make absolutely no apology for the campaign for levelling up that we are about to undertake. Let me repeat this point to the House: there is only one way we can fund and achieve this aim, and that is to have a strong and dynamic economy. I would rather have a country and a society where we believed in hope, opportunity and the importance of work, rather than welfare and benefits, and that is our approach.

Petition

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

Personal Statement

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have granted leave to the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) to make a personal statement following his resignation from the Government. I remind the House that no debate, nor interventions, can arise from such statements.

12:33

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

It has been eight years since I last stood to speak as a Back Bencher, and it is a privilege to do so again. When I left these Benches, it was to become a Minister in the Treasury, and it seems apt that I went back to whence I came: the circle of life. I am very proud to represent the good people of Bromsgrove, and I will of course continue to do so. I will also continue to champion the causes that I believe in most, albeit from outside the Government. I confess that I had hoped to have a little longer to make a difference from the inside, so—with thanks for your permission to make this statement, Mr Speaker—I thought it would be appropriate to briefly explain, first to the House, why I felt that I had to resign as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all colleagues in this Chamber and beyond for their messages of thanks in the last two weeks, and to thank my family for their love and patience over the last few years.

I came into politics to give something back to the country that has given me so much. While I do not intend this to be my last chapter in public life, whichever form that may take, I am immensely grateful for the trust and the support of colleagues in all the roles that I have had. After first holding two ministerial positions within the Treasury, and then returning as Chancellor, I have had the huge privilege of running four Departments. Each taught me more than the last, and it shaped my understanding of government. I can look back and say to myself, very sincerely, that I have never once made a decision—or, indeed, given advice on a decision—that I did not believe was in the national interest. You see, Britain’s democracy and economy are strong because of its institutions and its people. Conservatives especially believe that no particular person, or even a Government, has a monopoly on the best ideas. It is through these checks and balances of credible institutions—be it the Treasury, the Bank of England, the Office for Budget Responsibility, or, indeed, this House—that we arrive at sensible decisions that are in the national interest.

Now, when reflecting on the dynamic between No. 10 and No. 11, it is natural to look at past relationships. There is no one size that fits. Any model that works, or does not, depends on the personalities that are involved just as much as the processes. It depends on the mutual respect and trust that allows for constructive, creative tension between teams. It is that creative dynamic that means that it has always been the case that advisers advise, Ministers decide, and Ministers decide on their advisers. I could not see why the Treasury, with the vital role that it plays, should be the exception to that. A Chancellor, like all Cabinet Ministers, has to be able to give candid advice to a Prime Minister so that he is speaking truth to power. I believe that the arrangement proposed would significantly inhibit that, and it would not have been in the national interest. So while I was grateful for the continued trust of the Prime Minister in wanting to reappoint me, I am afraid that these were conditions that I could not accept in good conscience. I do not intend to dwell further on all the details and personalities—[Interruption]—the Cummings and goings, if you will. [Laughter.] Much of this commentary was just gossip and distraction, and now it is in the past.

I very much hope that the new Chancellor will be given the space to do his job without fear or favour. I know this: that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) is more than capable of rising to the challenge. He worked for me as a Local Government Minister and as Chief Secretary, and I could not have asked for a better working relationship. Indeed, I had lobbied the PM for him to be given the role as Chief Secretary, and to keep it at the recent reshuffle—but I did not get my way on that one!

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has won a huge mandate to transform our country, and already he is off to a great start: ending the parliamentary paralysis, defeating the radical left, getting Brexit done, a points-based immigration system, and an infrastructure revolution. Now our party—our Government—has a huge opportunity and responsibility ahead. We need a resolute focus on long-term outcomes and delivery, not short-term headlines. The Treasury as an institution—as an economic Ministry—should be the engine that drives this new agenda. Since last summer, it has done just that, from planning properly for Brexit, to bringing in a generational step-change in infrastructure investment; from rewriting the Green Book to better favour our regions, to long-term thinking on human capital and designing the blueprint for levelling up across our country. I am incredibly proud of the scale and speed of the work that has already been done.

But the Treasury must also be allowed to play its role as a finance Ministry, with the strength and credibility that it requires. I am a proud, low-tax Conservative, and I always will be. Already, our tax burden is the highest it has been in 50 years. It is fair to say that not everyone at the centre of Government always feels the pressure to balance the books—it was ever thus. But the Treasury has a job to do. It is the only tax-cutting Ministry. Every other Department has an in-built incentive to seek and spend ever more money—not that I did that when I ran Departments, of course. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) is agreeing with that. But trade-offs have to be made somewhere.

At a time when we need to do much more to level up across generations, it would not be right to pass the bill for our day-to-day consumption to our children and grandchildren. Unlike the US, we do not have the fiscal flexibility that comes with a reserve currency. That is why the fiscal rules that we are elected on are critical. To govern is to choose, and these rules crystallise the choices that are required to keep spending under control, to keep taxes low, to root out waste and to pass the litmus test that was rightly set in stone in our manifesto of debt being lower at the end of the Parliament.

While I am of course disappointed not to be finishing what I started, I look to the future not with apprehension but with great optimism. We on the Government Benches have a shot at achieving nothing less than wholesale renewal for our economy, our society and our country—a chance to give everyone an opportunity to live up to their full potential, wherever they live and whatever their background; to put people, place and social justice at the heart of a more human capitalism; and to bring our country together as one nation. I know that this is a shared vision, and I firmly believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has the tenacity, the energy and the skill to see it through. I want to leave the House in no doubt that he has my full confidence, and the Government my full support, to get it done.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be in order for me to thank my right hon. Friend for the grace with which he has just spoken and his immense service to this country in several Departments, and to remind him that he has friends and admirers on all sides of the House of Commons?

[Mr Speaker]

As the Prime Minister knows, that is not a point of order, but it will be on the record.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I am not going to take any more points of order because I want to get the statement under way, and points of order will follow.

Coronavirus

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

12:43

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on covid-19, or coronavirus. As of this morning, 7,132 people in the UK have been tested for the virus. So far, 13 people in the UK have tested positive, of whom eight have now been discharged from hospital. We expect more cases here. As planned, 115 people left supported isolation at Kents Hill Park in Milton Keynes on 23 February. All tested negative for covid-19. On Saturday, 32 people from the Diamond Princess cruise ship were repatriated and taken to Arrowe Park, where they will remain in supported isolation. Four of those have tested positive and been transferred to specialist centres. British tourists are currently being quarantined in a hotel in Tenerife, and the Foreign Office is in contact with them.

We have a clear four-part plan to respond to the outbreak of this disease: contain, delay, research and mitigate. We are taking all necessary measures to minimise the risk to the public. We have put in place enhanced monitoring measures at UK airports, and health information is available at all international airports, ports and international train stations. We have established a supported isolation facility at Heathrow to cater for international passengers who are tested, and to maximise infection control and free up NHS resources.

The NHS is testing a very large number of people who have travelled back from affected countries, the vast majority of whom test negative. In the past few days, we have published guidance for schools, employers, first responders, social care and the travel industry on how to handle suspected cases. If anyone has been in contact with a suspected case in a childcare or an educational setting, no special measures are required while test results are awaited. There is no need to close the school or send other students or staff home. Once the results arrive, those who test negative will be advised individually about returning to education. In most cases, closure of the childcare or education setting will be unnecessary, but this will be a local decision based on various factors, including professional advice. Schools should be guided by the advice on the gov.uk website, and contact their regional schools commissioner in case of queries. I can tell the House that in the coming days we will roll out a wider public information campaign.

While the Government and the NHS have plans in place for all eventualities, everyone can play their part. To reiterate, our advice is for everyone to take sensible precautions, such as using tissues and washing hands more. Yesterday we updated our advice to returning travellers from northern Italy—defined as anywhere north of, but not including, Pisa and Florence—as well as from Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar. Those returning from Iran, the lockdown areas of northern Italy and the special care zone in South Korea should self-isolate and call NHS 111, even if they have no symptoms.

We are working closely with the World Health Organisation, the G7 and the wider international community to ensure that we are ready for all eventualities. We are co-ordinating research efforts with international partners. Our approach has at all times been guided by the chief medical officer, working on the basis of the best possible scientific evidence. The public can be assured that we have a clear plan to contain, delay, research and mitigate, and that we are working methodically through each step to keep the public safe. I commend this statement to the House.

12:47

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his announcement and for sight of his statement. Again, all our thoughts must be with those who have been diagnosed with coronavirus—covid-19—in the UK and across Europe, and again we reiterate our support and put on record our thanks to all NHS staff and public health staff, as well as to the chief medical officer for the leadership he is showing.

The World Health Organisation has warned that countries are “simply not ready” for a pandemic. There has now been significant spread of the virus across the European continent—in Italy in particular, but other cases have been identified in Austria, Croatia and Switzerland. This is clearly now very serious. Yesterday there did appear to be a little bit of a discrepancy, if I may say so, between the travel advice from the CMO and the Secretary of State. Can the Secretary of State clarify for the House what exactly the travel advice is for those travelling or seeking to travel to northern Italy? I think that would be welcome.

We welcome the Secretary of State’s plans for Heathrow. Could he explain to the House why that facility is proposed only for Heathrow, and why similar facilities will not be in place at other major airports, particularly the bigger airports such as Manchester and so on. The Secretary of State mentioned the situation in Tenerife. We are all obviously very concerned about the situation there. Could he offer a little more detail about what advice and support are being offered to British nationals at this hotel?

I note what the Secretary of State says about schools, and I entirely understand it, but we do have several schools in England and Northern Ireland shut completely at the moment for a deep clean, after students and teachers returned from skiing trips. I understand that schools should check relevant websites and get local advice, but does the Secretary of State expect advice to be sent to schools from the Department for Education? If schools have to start shutting, will the Government consider arrangements for alternative schooling provision for those affected?

Will the Secretary of State update the House on how many specialist and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation beds are available across the NHS? We know that the NHS is under intense pressure at this time of year—indeed, today the BBC is running a story about people waiting on trolleys in hospital corridors and so on. The Nuffield Trust has warned that there is “little in the tank” to cope with coronavirus, and Public Health England has announced that tests for the condition are being increased to include people displaying flu-like symptoms at 11 hospitals and 100 GP surgeries across the UK.

Will community trusts and clinical commissioning groups fund the extra work related to coronavirus from their existing baselines, and is the Secretary of State making representations to the Treasury for additional emergency NHS revenue resource in the coming weeks? Will he update the House on how much has been drawn from the capital facility for hospitals to develop specialist pods to quarantine patients, which he announced in his previous statement?

I reiterate that the Opposition want to work constructively with the Government on this issue. We are broadly supportive of the steps taken by the Secretary of State, and I hope he understands that we are trying to be constructive in our questions. We continue to thank all NHS staff for their work at this difficult time.

[Matt Hancock]

I join the hon. Gentleman in reiterating our thanks to all NHS and Public Health England staff, and others, who have been working so hard on this issue. I also express my thanks to the hon. Gentleman, and to every Member of the House with whom my Ministers and I have had dealings. In each and every case, everyone has taken a responsible and proportionate approach. This is not a political matter; this is a matter of keeping the public safe, and everybody in this House has played their part.

Plans are in place in case of the virus becoming a pandemic, but it is not yet certain that that will happen. The plan is still in the phase of “contain”: we aim to contain the virus both abroad and here at home, and prevent it from becoming a pandemic, while of course ensuring that plans are in place should that happen. On travel to Italy, our advice is that all but essential travel is not recommended to the quarantined areas of northern Italy. The advice for people returning from northern Italy is clear: those returning from the quarantined areas should self-isolate, and those returning from the rest of northern Italy should self-isolate if they have symptoms. I hope that advice is clear, and it is available on the Government website.

The hon. Gentleman asked about Heathrow, and we have expanded the availability of supported isolation facilities. Just having Arrowe Park and the facility at Milton Keynes is not appropriate for individual travellers whom we think need to be quarantined, but at the moment those numbers are low, which is why we need only one facility. We chose a facility near Heathrow because that is the point of biggest throughput, but we do not rule out rolling that out more broadly if we think it necessary.

The Department for Education has repeatedly issued advice to schools—I am glad to see the Minister for School Standards in his place—and we issued revised advice this morning. Our goal is to keep schools open wherever we can, as long as that protects the public. Our wider goal is to have minimum social and economic disruption, or disruption to the NHS, subject to keeping the public safe. The message that we do not have a policy of blanket school closures is important. Unless there is specific professional advice, or until there is a positive test, schools should stay open and follow the advice on the GOV.UK website. If they have queries they should contact their regional schools commissioner.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the availability of testing, and as far as we know, we now have testing sites at all A and E facilities across England. We are also planning to introduce home testing, some of which has started already, so that people do not have to go to the pod in front of A and E—that pod has been placed there to ensure that people do not go into A and E, where they might infect others. Home testing is the safest place to be tested because people do not have to go anywhere, and that will allow us to roll out testing to a larger number of people. The hon. Gentleman asked about the available funding. Funding is available from the Treasury. So far we have used it for capital funding, but we will obviously keep this issue under review.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I expect to run this statement until around 1.30 pm.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)]

Has the roll-out of diagnostic testing facilities to 11 laboratories in the UK been completed? Does my right hon. Friend have plans to extend that coverage if there were to be a wider outbreak?

[Matt Hancock]

There has been a roll-out to a wider number of laboratories, and we are working through plans for wider commercial diagnostic testing. We are working with around a dozen private companies, and using private diagnostic testing companies, not least because globally there is a search for a “by the side of the bed” testing capability. At the moment, all testing is done in labs, which means that someone has to take a swab to the lab and get the result. We want testing capabilities that involve a bit of kit by the bedside of the patient, so that tests can be run onsite. There is a global search for that capability, but it does not yet exist. We are putting funding and support into making that happen, and I hope we will soon get to that solution.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Worldwide we are looking at about 80,000 cases of coronavirus. That is 10 times the number that we saw with SARS, which suggests it is a very infectious condition. Will the UK Government liaise with international partners to ensure accurate reporting? It is critical to map the spread of coronavirus, and there will be a danger that some countries under-report because they are afraid of economic impacts. Has any consideration been given to using thermal detection technology at Heathrow, and for that to be spread across more sites? We can no longer think that this only involves people who come from a few countries—people follow different routes, and almost everyone coming in would need to be screened.

As the Secretary of State said, there is only a small window of opportunity when it is possible to prevent or contain the initial spread of coronavirus. As I have previously said, I am concerned about not self-isolating asymptomatic people, particularly when we are aware that the case that spread the condition to others in the UK involved someone who was not significantly symptomatic. We do not know what the prodromal phase of coronavirus is, and people could be spreading the condition without our knowledge. The advice must be clear.

Does the Secretary of State recognise the confusion there is that those returning from certain parts of north Italy must self-isolate, even if asymptomatic, but those coming from China do not need to self-isolate if asymptomatic? That is causing confusion and we may end up behind the curve. If containment is to work, we must be ahead of the curve. Self-isolating does not count as illness, so will the Government send a clear message to employers, so that those who are advised to self-isolate will still be paid or receive sickness cover? Otherwise, there will be people who feel that they must go to work, because they simply cannot afford to have no income for two weeks.

The Secretary of State suggested that he would not go to wider northern Italy, and the Chief Medical Officer suggested that people with health conditions should not go there. Travel insurance kicks in only when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office gives clear guidance. Will that guidance be changed to state that people should not be travelling to wider northern Italy, and other areas, so that people are not disadvantaged by not having travel insurance if they choose not to put themselves, and indeed all of us, at risk of the disease spreading?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady is right with regard to concerns about under-reporting, especially in some countries. I am afraid I do not recognise some of her clinical observations, and I do not recognise the idea that we should change travel advice between China and Italy. We should base travel advice on expert clinical evidence. I am very happy to ensure that she receives a full briefing from medical experts, so that she can get the clinical points right.

On thermal detection, rather like stopping flights this is against clinical advice. The clinical advice is not to undertake thermal detection, because we get a lot of false positives. Indeed, the only country I know of in Europe that undertook thermal detection at the border was Italy and that is now the scene of the largest outbreak.

Finally, the hon. Lady made a very important point about people in work and self-isolation. Self-isolation on medical advice is considered sickness for employment purposes. That is a very important message for employers and those who can go home and self-isolate as if they were sick, because it is for medical reasons.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Mercifully, nobody in this country has yet died of coronavirus, but every year 600 people die of seasonal flu. In the phase to which my right hon. Friend refers, is he redoubling our efforts to ensure that the elderly and the vulnerable in particular are vaccinated against seasonal flu, therefore perhaps mitigating pressures on our national health service in the event that coronavirus becomes more of a problem here and makes demands particularly on intensive care beds?

[Matt Hancock]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The vaccination rate was, I think, at a record level this year, and it is very important. The simple measures that everybody can take, such as washing hands and using tissues, protect us against flu as well as coronavirus.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

The four people who were welcomed to Arrowe Park Hospital developed symptoms subsequent to coming to this country, despite being tested extensively before they were allowed to fly. Does that cause the Secretary of State any worry? Will he say what that might mean for whether people are infectious before they are symptomatic?

[Matt Hancock]

It is my job to worry about all those things. The answer is that that sequence of events confirms to me the importance of quarantining people. I know that there were some concerns about quarantine, but I think it showed that we were dead right to quarantine people because it turned out that they tested positive during the quarantine. Mr Speaker, I just want to put on the record my thanks to the hon. Lady, and everyone in her constituency and the Wirral more broadly, who have risen to this challenge.

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

Constituents have been writing to me with regard to travel advice. They are planning holidays to countries that are currently affected and for which the travel advice is to isolate on return if symptomatic. Some do not want to go on those holidays because, understandably, they are genuinely frightened, but they cannot reclaim the money because the travel advice is not saying that they cannot go. If they do go, they then have to isolate when they come back, which effectively lengthens their holidays and creates significant difficulties in relation to their responsibilities. Will the Secretary of State advise my constituents on what they should do in that circumstance and what discussions have taken place with the Foreign Office on this matter?

[Matt Hancock]

Decisions on precise travel advice for each country is of course a matter for the Foreign Office, but I can tell my hon. Friend that all those considerations are taken into account. We have to base decisions on the best possible science and clinical advice.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

What assessment have the Government made of the potential economic consequences of the spread of the coronavirus, globally as well as in Europe and in the UK? The Secretary of State will know that northern Italy is in lockdown and that other countries with a much greater spread of the disease have provided an economic stimulus because whole areas are shutting down. We are not there at all in the UK, but has he discussed this issue with the Treasury, because the potential impact on growth and the nervousness of financial markets is very real?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue. I have of course talked to the Treasury and the new Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question. Another important consideration is that overreaction has economic and social costs too. We have to keep the public safe, but we need to act in a way that is proportionate, so that does come into our considerations. My primary goal is to keep the public safe—of course it is—but we also have to take into account other impacts. For instance, as I set out in the statement, schools should stay open, with no blanket ban, unless there are specific reasons for them not to. Closing a school does not just have an impact on children’s education—there are wider social and economic impacts too.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the very responsible way he is handling this very serious situation. He is clearly working very closely—as his predecessor did and I did when I worked with him—with Professor Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, and following the evidence. That has to be right. Last time the Secretary of State made a statement to the House, he said that he felt it would get worse before it got better. I think that that has been borne out by events. What level of personal responsibility should individuals and employers take—there are alternatives to travel, especially business travel, where there are technological solutions—to help with containment?

[Matt Hancock]

That is a very wise question and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask it. The NHS has a very important role to play in responding to this crisis, Public Health England is leading the public health response brilliantly, and Professor Chris Whitty, as chief medical officer, has done an amazing job over the past two months and is one of the finest epidemiologists in the world, but the truth is that everybody has a role to play, from the simple action of washing hands all the way through to responding in a sensible and proportionate way. It is important to dwell on that.

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

I join others in thanking NHS staff in advance for the work they will have to do to contain and deal with the coronavirus. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending the work of Professor Gilbert and others at the Jenner Institute, who are working tirelessly to develop a vaccine? As he said in his statement, the NHS 111 service is now in effect the frontline service. We may have received text messages from our GP surgeries telling us to contact them first. What are we doing to ensure they are properly staffed and trained? Finally—this is very important, Mr Speaker—will he join me in condemning those who are hurling racist abuse at British Asians, both in Oxford and elsewhere? There is a worry that we could racially profile those who may have this disease and that is not acceptable. We all need to calm down.

[Matt Hancock]

I abhor any racist attacks that people might say have resulted from this situation. The circumstances do not matter—racism does not help; it hinders any response. I can assure the hon. Lady that 111 staff have the support they need and we have back-up plans. That is all part of the plan and 111 is responding brilliantly. Thank goodness we have 111. It is only a couple of years old and it is absolutely delivering in these circumstances. Everybody in the country knows that if they are worried that they have coronavirus they should call 111.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the Secretary of State at this very difficult time. His statement was very measured. He mentions four means: containment, delay, research and mitigation. Containment and delay come with serious economic and social disruption, and we are seeing that in the markets at the moment. I would say that what we must be doing the most is mitigation. This is a very strange virus with a very long period between infection and symptoms. The number of interactions people make during that two-week period—perhaps even longer—will be innumerable, and that makes thermal testing, which is often the first way forward, difficult to analyse. Will the Secretary of State, the chief medical officer and other international experts look seriously at whether this is simply A. N. Other flu virus that is difficult and problematic, but recoverable from?

[Matt Hancock]

I thank my hon. Friend; I will certainly do that. I agree with him on the importance of mitigation. The mitigation strand is really about what would happen should this become a full-scale pandemic, and the very significant impact that that would have on the country— including, of course, on the NHS. On the purpose of the delay strand of this work, even if we do not succeed in containing the virus, we want to delay its arrival so that it does not all arrive in one big peak, but arrives over time so that we can better cope with it. Of course, the contain strand is about trying to stop that from happening at all.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the House knows, I was in self-isolation last week because Harry Horton of ITV alerted me to the fact that there had been a confirmed case at the UK bus summit, which I attended. I rang 111 and the advice was that, if I had been in contact with the person who had coronavirus, I should self-isolate, but if I had not, I need not. Yet no agency could confirm or deny whether I had been in contact. So more work on tracking needs to be done. Will the Secretary of State consider developing, like the Chinese Government, a tracking app to help people in that situation?

[Matt Hancock]

I am very happy, subject to consent, to look at that. I would also say that the way that contact tracing works is that, once the positive case is identified, you trace out from the positive case, rather than starting from the wider population—including attendees at the bus conference—and focusing in. Contact tracing was undertaken in the correct way. Indeed, the majority of cases that we have found in the UK have been found through the proactive contact tracing undertaken by Public Health England; that commends its approach.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the statement. Obviously, this issue affects all our constituencies, so can he confirm that he will continue to provide further information to the House as the situation develops and as more information becomes available to us, so that we can keep our constituents’ minds at rest that everything that can be done is being done?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely; of course I will keep the House and the wider public updated. That is an incredibly important part of our work. Of course, for any colleague, my door, and that of the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), is always open to answer any questions.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

What steps are the Government taking, in partnership with tech companies, to battle fake news on coronavirus?

[Matt Hancock]

That is a very important subject. In fact, I have been working on that in the past 24 hours, to ensure that tech companies, social media companies, Google and others promote the right answers to questions about coronavirus. Most of the social media companies—we have been in contact with them—have behaved in an exemplary fashion, ensuring that information from, for example, the NHS gets promoted.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement today. Following on from the previous question, it is clear that everybody has heeded the advice to self-isolate, but exactly what self-isolation might mean for certain groups—such as a family in which one person may be symptomatic, or groups of university students—is difficult to ascertain. I urge my right hon. Friend to pursue a public health initiative.

[Matt Hancock]

We updated the advice on exactly what self-isolation means earlier this week. It does, for instance, mean going home, and if other people live with you at home, trying to keep out of contact with them. It means, obviously, not going on public transport, leaving the house as little as possible, and trying to get other people to do things like collecting groceries. It also means, within a house where lots of people are living, trying to stay away from others living in that house. I appreciate that that is, practically, challenging and difficult—as a father of three small children, I get it—but that is the goal of self-isolation.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. What communication is his Department having with the devolved Administrations concerning precautions? Schools, such as one in my constituency, are flummoxed, not knowing how to manage the situation. What is he doing with the ports in Belfast to ensure that precautions are put in place?

The Secretary of State mentioned financial support. Will he outline whether there will be additional support for Northern Ireland if this disease comes to Northern Ireland?

[Matt Hancock]

Public health crises such as this are a UK-wide reserved matter, but we have had excellent working with all the devolveds, particularly the new Administration in Belfast. They join our weekly Cobras. We will have a Cobra this afternoon at which they will be present. Some matters—especially in the mitigate strand of work—are of course devolved, such as schools and healthcare. We work very hard on that, and I am sure that we will ensure that any financial consequentials are appropriately dealt with, too.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If someone starts feeling unwell on their journey home, what should they do when they arrive at the airport? Presumably, they ought to report to someone before travelling on public transport.

[Matt Hancock]

Yes; they should make themselves known to the public health presence at the port, and of course they can call 111 from mobiles, too.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

We heard what the Secretary of State told the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) about a person who is self-isolating, keeping away from other family members, but what is the advice to the other family members about whether they should go about their normal business—go to work or go to school if they are children—in those circumstances?

[Matt Hancock]

Other family members who are asymptomatic should go about their normal business in the normal way. It is those who have tested positively who should self-isolate.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

The Health Secretary is absolutely right that containment of covid-19 is very important. In that vein, will he keep under review isolation facilities being made available at London Gatwick airport, which of course has many flights to and from both Asia and Europe?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course, that would be the obvious next step. I will not confirm that—we do not need it yet—but that is all part of the plan.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Irish authorities have already advised the Irish Rugby Football Union to call off the Six Nations game against Italy, which obviously affects the north, as it is a Northern Ireland team as well. England are due to play Italy in the Six Nations in a few weeks. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and with the sporting authorities about advising what to do in relation to the Six Nations championship and other sporting events?

[Matt Hancock]

Obviously, DDCMS is involved in the cross-Government decision making on these things. Our goal is to minimise social disruption—of which this is an important part for any rugby fan—subject to keeping the public safe. These are difficult balances to strike sometimes, and I will be discussing the matter with the new Secretary of State at DDCMS.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said, particularly in relation to schools. He may be aware that a school in my constituency has closed as a precautionary measure, after students returned from northern Italy. Would he contact both me and the school to reassure parents and staff?

[Matt Hancock]

I would be very happy to discuss the specific case with my hon. Friend—either I or the Minister for Public Health—and I am looking into that specific example. A small number of schools have taken that step. I understand why they have, and it is of course a decision for the head, taking into account local factors. We are putting in place, through the regional schools commissioners, the structures to make it possible to ensure that every school can get the advice it needs, but in the first instance every school should go to the website, because there is a huge amount of advice on that.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

What action is the Minister taking to ensure that the support and communication being given is adequate and clear to British nationals currently quarantined in the hotel in Tenerife, and to their families, who are rightly worried?

[Matt Hancock]

It is a very important question. We are getting as much information as we possibly can, through the Foreign Office, to those who are in Tenerife. As I announced in the statement, we will shortly be strengthening our domestic communications programme to ensure that people have all the information they need.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I was very pleased when, yesterday evening, the Health Minister took me aside and said how well the whole of Milton Keynes had reacted to hosting a quarantine centre, and he was right of course. The professionals in the NHS— clinical and managerial—were fantastic, as were the officers in the council. I think we should recognise that the whole health team—the Secretary of State and his Ministers, advisers and officials—and, indeed, parliamentarians on any Bench in this House, have reacted incredibly well to this situation. So can the Secretary of State reassure us that this is part of the UK being the best prepared—or among the very well prepared —in the world to deal with this kind of outbreak?

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is right about Milton Keynes. The people of Milton Keynes have done exactly the right thing, and I would add to his list Milton Keynes University Hospital, which has done a brilliant job. More broadly, I would also add the media, who have in very large part responded in an incredibly responsible way to a very big story. We have detailed operational plans for dealing with this situation, including if it gets much worse, and those plans are worked on and updated in response to all the information we get, but part of the plan is about the behaviour of people and how people respond in this House and in the country. Thus far we have seen an exemplary response. I hope that continues.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Many wedding dresses in this country are designed here but made in China, and wedding dress companies in the UK, including in my constituency, have found it difficult because the factories in China have closed; they are suffering as a result. I am aware, having married many women in my time—when I was a vicar—that this is time sensitive. There is a real danger that many of these businesses will suffer enormous financial loss, not to mention the impact on the families. Will the Secretary of State chase up replies from Ministers in other Departments to ensure financial support for those companies?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Member raises an important point and through the medium of the wedding dress makes a much broader point, which is that many things are made in China, especially drugs and pharmaceuticals and clothing, which means that the impact in China will have an impact here through the supply chain problems. I am working with the Treasury on the appropriate response. Containing the virus will obviously have health benefits, but it will have economic benefits, too.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) nicked my question about the number of cancelled sporting events around the world, which the Secretary of State will be aware of, but can he be clear about the advice to those who host or attend these events in order to prevent the spread of coronavirus? Can he confirm that, contrary to rumours on the internet, 111 call handlers are not advising people to go to their GP?

[Matt Hancock]

People should call 111 if they are concerned; they should not attend A&E or go to their GP, unless 111 has correctly told them to do that. The 111 call handlers are highly trained. There are GPs at the other end of the line to make sure people get the best advice. It is the place to go to.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

Having experienced the outbreak in my home town of Brighton and Hove, I would like to commend the work of the Secretary the State’s Department, his officials and public health officials across the country. In particular, I would like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who personally went beyond the call of duty to keep me and my colleagues informed at every step. I am convinced that the strategy that was unfolded in our city was the correct one, but what was not quite good enough was the explanation given to residents of why that strategy was chosen. Those who came into contact with people with coronavirus were contacted proactively, but those in the same space who were concerned had no information at all. Is this something that will get better?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman is right to praise my colleague. It is a pity, Mr Speaker, that you did not call him earlier, because she has just left the Chamber. He is right; we are constantly learning. Communication in this area is always a challenge, because we have to get some quite technical information over to a large number of people in a very short time. We do our very best, but we are constantly learning from what goes well and what goes badly, so I would love to hear more from him about how we can improve.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Following on from the last question, in his statement, the Secretary of State referenced a public information campaign. Can he provide more detail about that and confirm that it will be updated as the situation changes?

[Matt Hancock]

That is right. We have an existing public information campaign to explain to people that the best thing to do is to call 111, but we will be strengthening that. In particular, we want to persuade people to wash their hands more and to look out for themselves, especially if they have a sneeze, in order to slow the spread; we want to explain what they should to do if they think they are infected. It is incredibly important that we get this information out across the whole population.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the level-headed clarion certainty in the Secretary of State’s approach to this difficult event; it gives confidence to many people across the country. Cambridge House Grammar School in my constituency had to send pupils home yesterday. It appears to have acted absolutely by the book in terms of the advice given, so I welcome the communication between the Department of Health and Social Care here and the Departments of Education and Health in Northern Ireland, and I hope it continues. With regard to the game to be played on Saturday between Italy and Ireland, many Ulster players and Ulster fans are following that closely. His counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, Simon Harris, has said the game should be stopped, but the Department here has taken a much more level-headed approach and said it will monitor the situation. The IRFU, which will ultimately take the decision, does not seem to know what to do. Can the Secretary of State give clear and clarion advice to the IRFU?

[Matt Hancock]

I will ask the chief medical officer to speak to the Republic of Ireland chief medical officer and to ensure that the best and appropriate clinical advice is given. Rather than me giving advice from the Dispatch Box, I will ensure we get the best clinical advice and join up with the Republic.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I hear what the Secretary of State says about how people should go about their ordinary lives if they have not tested positive, but where parents self-isolate while awaiting testing, should their children go to school before they know the outcome of the test? Schools being what they are, it is bound to cause alarm. Should children not be kept away until such time as the all-clear is given?

[Matt Hancock]

It is best here that we follow the clinical advice, which is as I set out. One of the good things about the covid-19 coronavirus, compared with similar illnesses, is that it seems to be much less impactful in terms of symptoms on children, which is good news, because with the flu it is normally the other way around. That observation underpins the clinical advice. We need to listen to the scientists.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement to the House. What advice and help is being given to airport staff, given that they are often the gatekeepers?

[Matt Hancock]

We should thank Border Force, which has done a fantastic job, and the staff at the international ports. We are constantly engaged with them, through the Department for Transport—and the Home Office in the case of Border Force—to ensure they get the right information and support, but if the hon. Member has any specific worries, I would be happy to answer them.

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

The Secretary of State and the Government have done a fantastic job on public information, but does he agree that it would be helpful, given our reach on social media and through our constituency surgeries, if Members were to put up posters and broadcast the necessary information to our constituents in our tweets and elsewhere on social media in order to maximise that reach?

[Matt Hancock]

I am very happy to do that. More broadly, I am open to ideas on how to improve our response, including learning from where things have not gone well. Our approach is to make the UK response the best it can be—that is my only goal—and when there are good ideas, such as that one from my hon. Friend, we will act on them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his clear leadership on this matter and his determination to deal with the issues. He referred to schools in Northern Ireland. Some of them have concerns about upcoming trips that they have planned and paid for in advance. What advice can he give to schools in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom? Should they travel?

[Matt Hancock]

The critical thing is to follow the Foreign Office travel advice, which is informed by the evidence, including evidence from scientists. It is kept constantly under review and is clearly published on its website.

Points of Order

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

13:29

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is timely that Health Ministers are in the Chamber, because there have been two important announcements this week in connection with the dangers of smoking. One was an attempt by a tobacco manufacturer to interfere in the development of public health policy; the other was the projection by Cancer Research UK that the Government would miss their target of reducing adult smoking levels to 5%, and would take a further seven years to reach it. Are you aware, Mr Speaker, whether any Minister from the Department of Health and Social Care is planning to make a statement on that projection, and on the Government’s attitude to tobacco companies trying to muscle in on public health policy?

[Mr Speaker]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no one has been in touch to tell me that any Minister is going to make a statement, but the good news is that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has certainly heard his plea.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware of serious concerns that have been raised by Members in all parts of the House—for instance, during questions to the Prime Minister earlier—about the appointment of the racist, sexist and eugenics supporter Andrew Sabisky to a senior role at No. 10 Downing Street. The Government have yet to answer questions about that appointment.

I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Cabinet Office asking a series of questions about the nature of Mr Sabisky’s appointment, his vetting, and the processes that led to it, but I have yet to receive a reply.

First, Mr Speaker, do you know how I can encourage the Government to respond as a matter of urgency to those concerns, which I think is in the national interest and the interests of the House? Secondly, the Prime Minister today laid a written statement about the security and defence review, and it has been alleged that Mr Sabisky was employed specifically to advise on the review. The Prime Minister seemed to suggest that there would soon be an oral statement about that. Have you, Mr Speaker, been given any notice of when the Prime Minister intends to come and answer questions, including the question of who is advising on that important review?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. I am not responsible for Ministers and their answers, but I think that they should have the courtesy to give Members early replies. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Table Office will use its best endeavours to help, and I certainly know that he will not give up that easily. I am sure that Ministers will have heard what he has said, and my advice would be “Get some replies quickly.”

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

On Monday, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) about the right to a family life under her new immigration system, the Home Secretary told the House that

“the points-based system....is welcoming those with the right skills and attributes, and that applies equally to their families.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 49.]

However, the Home Office statement announcing the system makes no provision for the right to a family life, and paragraph 22 says that family reunion will not be part of the points-based system, as was recommended to the Government by the Migration Advisory Committee. Can you, Mr Speaker, or the Home Secretary clarify which is the case? Will new migrants automatically be able to bring their families here, or will their families have to apply separately or meet other criteria?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order, but it is not a point of order for me. However, she has raised it, and I hope that those who are responsible will correct the record if necessary. What the hon. Lady has said will certainly be in Hansard. However, if she is unhappy, let me say again, “Please use the best endeavours of the Table Office”, which will help her to try to correct the record.

Bill Presented

European Citizens’ Rights

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Christine Jardine, supported by Stuart C. McDonald, Munira Wilson, Daisy Cooper, Sarah Olney, Jamie Stone, Wera Hobhouse and Wendy Chamberlain, presented a Bill to guarantee the immigration rights of EU, EEA EFTA and Swiss citizens resident in the United Kingdom; to require the Government to provide such persons with physical proof of those rights; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 May, and to be printed (Bill 93).

Workers (Definition and Rights)

1st reading & 1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

13:33

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

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the definition of worker; to make provision about workers’ rights; and for connected purposes.

This is, of course, the reintroduction of a Bill that was introduced in the last parliamentary Session, which, sadly, did not proceed to a Second Reading. However, as many more seasoned Members have taught me, repetition is not a vice!

I want to thank the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the TUC, Feeding Britain, and the great Better than Zero campaign for providing me with examples that explain why the Bill is necessary, and why we, as a Parliament, require a debate on giving working people greater protection.

It is time to refine the current definitions of a worker, in the light of recent Supreme Court judgments, and to provide greater protection from day one of a person’s employment, eliminating zero-hours contracts and giving greater protection to those in precarious work, such as—but not exclusively—those working in the hospitality sector. Far from addressing an unbalanced economy that rewards failure as long as it is on a global scale, successive Governments have clung to the supremacy of the market over workers’ rights. However, all the evidence shows that a healthy economy values workers, and that achieving the correct balance between profit and reward is the best way to secure long-term growth instead of short-term profit.

Many voices are now challenging the sheer scale of the exploitation and poor working practices which all age groups experience, but which often hit younger people the hardest. As Feeding Britain has reported:

“Increasingly we are receiving evidence around individuals on ZHCs”

—zero-hours contracts—

“who are being forced to the door of the food bank to supplement their low or volatile income. Not only is this promoting a message that work doesn’t pay, but ZHCs are also having the equally damaging impact of making Universal Credit…payments fluctuate and in turn pushing proud, resilient individuals to rely heavily on food banks.

As hours vary each week, or sometimes each day, on ZHCs there is often a delay with UC catching up on the hours worked and, in some cases, UC forecasts are being made on the previous month where hours worked are dramatically different. This represents the first domino to fall, with wildly unpredictable payments leading to rent arrears and the loss of other passported benefits. Housing associations have reported a rise in the number of tenants who are falling foul of ZHCs and its impact on the financial housing support they receive.”

Feeding Britain gives the example of Paul, of west Cheshire, who said:

“Zero-hour contracts are no good to anybody. You need at least 40 hours a week to be able to fend for yourself and pay the bills. My universal credit payments were different each month and I could not keep up with the bills. I had to use foodbanks and got into arrears with both my rent and my council tax. I am better off not working than working in this way.”

Another example was that of a single parent in Coventry, who said:

“A single parent works in a care job that cannot guarantee her hours. She is paid weekly, variable amounts, oftentimes just one shift in a week, and claims Universal Credit alongside. She can never predict how much UC will be paid to her, so cannot budget for her rent, utilities and food, and relies on foodbanks to supplement her low earned income, whilst she waits for UC payments to ensure she has enough to pay her rent”.

According to Feeding Britain,

“Having already received a pummelling from an income which rises and falls drastically from week to week,”

people

“have been left with a perpetual fear of the unforeseen financial emergency around the corner,”

and

“it is now clear that evidence of an ‘insecurity premium’ for those on ZHCs…exists.

According to the Living Wage Foundation an ‘insecurity premium’ hits those on unpredictable hours and low income the hardest. These are last minute changes which make planning and efficiency savings around other costs, such as childcare and travel, more troublesome.

For instance, if an employee has guaranteed shifts for a week, or month, they can work out the most affordable travel arrangements, be that a weekly or monthly pass with its obvious savings. They can plan their childcare on the days they anticipate they will be working and ensure a cheaper, advanced rate.”

Of course, the contrary applies to those on zero-hours contracts:

“if an employee is only notified last minute or on a day to day basis, they will suffer the premiums of a day travel ticket or last minute childcare costs”

—additional childcare costs.

Feeding Britain says:

“It is clear that, far from being a two-way street, where workers and employers benefit from the ZHC arrangement, many people are crying out for greater predictability, security, and continuity in their working life and an opportunity to look to the future rather than looking out for the infrequent calls of their employer. ZHCs are an arrangement which, in many cases, are stacked in favour of the employer and are leading workers into insecurity and often hardship.”

It is claimed that some individuals

“have particular lifestyles suited to the flexibility of interchangeable working patterns, and where this works for an individual it should be within their gift to keep it this way.”

However, the opposite is true:

“many others are burdened by the inflexibility of contracts designed to provide flexibility—they put plans on hold, they miss out on important occasions, their ability to budget or forecast is removed or diminished, and they are paying more for the same services than others with a consistent employment routine. Many live in fear that their commitment will be called into question or that they will be usurped by a fellow worker without the same commitments in life, who can take any shift, at any time, and in any place, without a second thought.

In other cases, individuals have travelled abroad, to visit family or attend bereavements, or have simply been out of the house and have stopped being offered shifts as they didn’t reply to their manager’s messages promptly enough. In many lines of work, often poorly paid, only ZHCs are available and employees feel trapped in the knowledge that they must be willing to drop everything, take last minute work and appease their employers to guarantee a future income stream.”

It is time, therefore, to take on the false narrative about the modern world of work that suggests that 21st-century technology has created a different dynamic and that workers have to adapt to be more flexible and more open to different ways of working, leaving behind outdated notions of security and guaranteed reward. The clear implication is that full-time secure employment rights—a pension, clearly defined hours—are some sort of outdated 20th-century concept, instead of the peak of a hard-fought struggle to redress the balance between employer and employee or, at its most extreme, the exploiter and exploited.

It is time for a full debate about what fair work is and how it should be properly rewarded. My Bill will bring some clarity to the definition of a worker by defining what rights are available and consolidating a single statutory definition of the people to whom employment rights and duties apply. It will also give the House the opportunity for more debate about the issues arising from the Taylor report. It is time to consolidate a single statutory definition of the people to whom employment rights and duties apply. Through the Supreme Court, there is already an emerging body of case law to support workers’ rights, and that is by no means the end of story.

It is also time to address the issue of short-notice shift changes, which penalise workers. We as a society can no longer accept a worker reporting for work only to be advised either that they have no work that day or that they are expected to work longer hours than they had been advised only the day before. Employers who do that should face a penalty requiring them to meet the cost to the worker of transport and/or out-of-pocket or increased childcare costs.

The time has come to secure legislation that uses the court judgments to clarify the nature and status of workers today. We should not over-complicate the issue by pretending that the age-old struggle between labour and capital has magically vanished in a digital age. Let me give the House an example from Glasgow that brings the whole Bill together quite well. Following the Art School Bar collapse, 22 workers on zero-hours contracts had their hours cut to zero without notice on 31 October, and exactly three months later, the company declared insolvency, because everything from holiday pay to notice pay is dependent on the last 13 weeks of hours. There is no guarantee that the workers will get anything. Some of them have been employed for seven years. I believe, as does the Better than Zero campaign, that that was a deliberate attempt to avoid paying out packages to staff. Had those workers had the guarantee of minimum hours built into their contracts, they would not now be left with minimal notice or a redundancy package.

There are those who consider that the crackdown on workers’ rights does not go far enough. They look fondly on 18th and 19th-century employment legislation such as the Master and Servant Acts, which were designed to discipline employees and repress the combination of workers in trade unions. I believe that those people are in a minority, however. If fairness is not nailed down in legislation and enforced, there will always be employers who push their advantage to the limit and beyond. The time has come for an Act of Parliament to address the issues of precarious work that bring misery to millions of people. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Chris Stephens, Grahame Morris, Alison Thewliss, Rachel Hopkins, Neil Gray, Jonathan Edwards, Amy Callaghan, Paula Barker, Kenny MacAskill, Dr Philippa Whitford, Brendan O’Hara and Colum Eastwood present the Bill.

Chris Stephens accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 94).

Environment Bill

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Fourteenth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of Session 2017-19, Prelegislative scrutiny of the Draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill, HC 1893. Eighteenth Report of the Environmental Audit Committee of Session 2017-19, Scrutiny of the Draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill, HC 1951.]

Second Reading

13:44

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to open this Second Reading debate on the Environment Bill. In recent decades, our natural world has faced multiple pressures. As a consequence, we face two great global challenges: climate change and biodiversity loss. A million species face extinction, and climate change is piling the pressure on nature, doubling the number of species under threat in the past 15 years. If global temperatures rise by even 1.5°, we will lose even more of our precious life on Earth. As an island nation, we are acutely aware of the devastating effects of plastic pollution on marine life. We need to act now to turn things around. This Government were elected on the strongest-ever manifesto for the environment, and this Bill is critical to implementing that commitment.

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

The Secretary of State is clearly right about the two big global challenges that we face, but does he also recognise that, as a country in our own right, we face a specific challenge with air pollution? Will he explain why he will not commit to the World Health Organisation-recommended legally binding limits on air pollution, to be set and met by 2030?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Bill provides for us to do precisely that by setting targets for PM 2.5. We will want to consult and engage people on exactly what that target should be. It is worth noting that the World Health Organisation has commended this Government’s air quality strategy, saying that it is an example for the rest of the world to follow.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place, and I welcome the Bill because it is a valuable step forward, but does he recognise that particulate pollution is a very real cause for concern, not just in inner cities but in suburban areas such as mine? Will he look at why we cannot use this Bill as an opportunity to advance rapidly towards WHO standards?

[George Eustice]

I simply say to my hon. Friend that the Bill gives us the powers to set precisely those long-term targets and to monitor our progress towards them. It also contains powers, later in the Bill, to improve our ability to manage air quality and support interventions that will enhance air quality.

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

rose—

[George Eustice]

I would like to make a little bit of progress. I am conscious of the number of Members who want to speak today.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who did a lot of groundwork on this Bill. I should also like to record my thanks to my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who has been involved with the Bill from the start.

The Bill is key to this Government’s ambitious environmental agenda. In 2020, as the UK hosts the next climate change conference, COP26 in Glasgow, we will be leading from the front as we write this new chapter for the UK outside the European Union: independent and committed to net zero and to nature recovery. The Government will work to tackle climate change and support nature recovery around the world and here at home, whether through recycling more and wasting less, planting trees, safeguarding our forests, protecting our oceans, savings species or pioneering new approaches to agriculture.

The first half of the Bill—parts 1 and 2—sets out the five guiding environmental principles for our terrestrial and marine environments to inform policy making across the country. These principles are that the polluter should pay; that harm should be prevented, and if it cannot be prevented, it should be rectified at source; that the environment should be taken into consideration across Government policy making; and that a precautionary approach should be taken.

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

What action are the Government taking to ensure that carbon offsetting is permanent and long lasting? Greenhouse gases can be in the atmosphere in some cases for hundreds of years, and there is a danger that carbon offsetting could be only temporary, so will the Government look at that point and come forward with proposals on it?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Bill contains a number of measures relating to a biodiversity net gain. It includes, for instance, a provision on conservation covenants, which will enable a landowner entering into an agreement to plant woodland, for instance, to have a covenant on that land as part of an agreement that would prevent it from subsequently being scrapped.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

The breadth of this Bill and the level of scrutiny that its various versions have already faced are testament to its importance and the hard work of Ministers, colleagues across the House, officials and an enormous number of organisations, yet there are still opportunities to strengthen it. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is open-minded to amendments that strengthen the Bill, particularly on biodiversity net gain? Some of us agree with Greener UK that that ought to be secured and maintained in perpetuity.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend will know that the Government are always open-minded to good amendments. However, she makes a valid point, which is that the Bill’s contents have already been extensively scrutinised. The Bill as presented before Second Reading has taken account of many different views.

[Geraint Davies]

The Secretary of State will be aware that current EU air quality standards are enforced through the courts, with Client Earth and so on having taken the Government to court. Will he accept that this Bill should include an independent agency with teeth that enforces World Health Organisation standards and, ideally, gives the fines to the health service and local government to help treat the damage caused by poor air quality and to reduce pollution locally? The Bill simply does not do that at the moment.

[George Eustice]

The Bill will establish the Office for Environmental Protection, which will have the power to take public bodies to an upper tribunal if there are breaches of the law. Of course, there are remedies in such a process through the usual mechanism of court orders.

The Bill sets out a framework for setting and taking concrete steps towards achieving our ambitious, legally binding long-term targets, and chapter 2 will establish that new, powerful independent Office for Environmental Protection to provide expert, objective and impartial advice on environmental issues and to take a proportionate and transparent approach to issues of national importance concerning the enforcement of environmental law. The OEP will hold this and every future Government to account by reporting on the progress we have made to improve the natural environment, as set out in our published evidence-based environmental improvement plans and targets.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[George Eustice]

I am going to make some progress.

The annual progress report we published last May showed that 90% of the highest-priority actions from our first 25-year environment plan, which will become our first improvement plan, have either been delivered or are on track. We have heeded the advice of both the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). The OEP will enforce compliance with environmental law where needed, complementing and reinforcing the work of the world-leading Committee on Climate Change.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Given that clause 40 gives the OEP quite broad prohibitions on the disclosure of information, how will we know what it is up to? Will the Secretary of State explain—he can do so in writing—why we need those prohibitions? Will he confirm now that the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, which are so important to public access, will not be interfered with? Will he state in the Bill that there will be no restriction on the public’s access to information through the EIR?

[George Eustice]

The framework set out in this Bill contains multiple mechanisms through which information is made available. We will be setting targets that will be reviewed every five years. There will then be a published environmental improvement plan that will also be reviewed every five years, and a progress report will be published annually. There are many mechanisms through which our public approach to delivering on our targets is made clear.

[Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill and its attempt, alongside enhancing the environment, to improve our farmers’ ability to produce food. To that end, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new legally binding environmental targets will take account of the best techniques available to our farming community, so that the targets are eminently achievable?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our Agriculture Bill is currently in Committee, and it includes not only tackling and mitigating climate change, but a wide range of other environmental objectives. The measures and policies in that Bill will indeed contribute to supporting the objectives and targets set out in this Bill. The OEP will provide a free-to-use complaints system for citizens, and it will also have the power, as I said earlier, to take the Government to court.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

One of the issues for so many of our communities is appreciating just how severe the crisis is, particularly for air quality, as we have heard in many interventions. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to put the power with the people and increase investment in monitoring stations? Monitors could be fitted to the refuse lorries that go down every street across the land, which would provide us all with real-time data.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The waste management section of the Bill will provide us with the ability not only to strengthen our requirements on producer responsibility, but to improve our ability to track waste, so that we can ensure that it is disposed of properly.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I spoke about the traceability of waste to the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), and heard that the Bill is perfect. However, I urge the Secretary of State to consider my amendment in Committee on the traceability of waste, particularly the end destination of municipal waste, so that residents who recycle know that their recycling will not end up in the oceans.

[George Eustice]

While I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, will look carefully at any amendments, the Bill will also give us the legal powers to prevent the exporting of plastic waste to other countries, confirming a manifesto commitment.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

Residents in Stafford are concerned about the impact of plastic pollution, and I commend the local organisations, such as Stafford Litter Heroes, that are doing so much to tackle this blight on our beautiful countryside. What steps the Government are taking to implement incentives such as the drinks container deposit return scheme, which would allow everyone to do their bit to protect our planet every day?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Bill contains new powers for enhanced producer responsibility when it comes to managing single-use plastics or waste more generally, and the Bill will give us the power to extend that to new categories. The Bill will also provide the power to enable us to establish deposit return schemes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[George Eustice]

I want to make some progress, because I am conscious that many Members have put into speak today.

The second half of the Bill sets out measures to improve our environment right now. The Bill will enable British business to be part of the solution by incentivising and supporting approaches in the UK that will deliver for our environment. Part 3 will help us to accomplish greater resource efficiency and a better approach to waste through more circular ways of using the planet’s finite resources. It will encourage manufacturers to develop innovative packaging and strong sustainability standards by making them responsible for the entire net cost of disposing of used packaging. It will stimulate the creation of alternatives to the single-use plastics that wreak havoc on the marine environment, while establishing consistent rules to help people recycle more easily across our country and giving us powers to set up deposit return schemes.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[George Eustice]

I am going to make some progress.

The Bill will improve how we hold to account those who litter, so we can tackle the waste crime that costs our economy over £600 million every year. It will put pressure on businesses to waste less food and get more of the surplus out to those who really need it.

Part 4 deals with air pollution—the greatest environmental risk to human health. Fine particulate matter is the most damaging pollutant, so the Bill makes a clear commitment to set an ambitious, legally binding target that will drive down particulate levels and improve public health. The Bill will give the Government the power to ensure that polluting vehicles are removed from our roads, and it will give local authorities greater capability to improve their local environment, from green spaces to healthier air for everyone to breathe, so that we all lead longer, healthier lives wherever we live and work.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I greatly welcome the ambitious proposals in this Bill, and of particular interest to my constituents in Rushcliffe are the measures on recycling. The proposals to standardise which recyclable materials are collected door to door and to include glass and food waste in that list are particularly welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to enact these measures as quickly as possible? Can he give me an idea of the timeframe for these proposals becoming a reality on people’s doorsteps?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and we will be consulting on when to deploy the powers in the Bill. It is important that we have greater consistency on recycling and on what local authorities are required to do, so that people play their part and know exactly what is required of them.

Part 5 will facilitate more responsible management of water, so that we have secure, safe, abundant water for the future, supporting a more resilient environment. We know that nature needs our help to recover.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend will know, England has 80% of the world’s chalk streams, and successive Governments have failed those chalk streams miserably. The abstraction reforms in this Bill are welcome, but they do not go far enough; nor is there any explicit commitment to building reservoirs, particularly the Abingdon reservoir. Will the Minister reflect on that?

[George Eustice]

Obviously, I am happy to discuss these matters with my hon. Friend. The Bill has powers to strengthen the abstraction licensing regime and to limit licences that have been established for some time. It will also give us powers to modify some of the legislation on water pollutants, so that we can add additional chemicals to the list, should we need to do so.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Although there is a lot to welcome in the Bill, the Government could achieve a lot more, particularly on water consumption. This is an opportunity to introduce targets for water consumption through labelling mechanisms that allow consumers to decide which products to buy and consume by comparing the amount of water those products use.

[George Eustice]

We have consulted on a range of measures on water consumption. We do not think we need additional primary powers in this Bill to take steps to address those issues. We will obviously be responding to the consultation soon.

We know that nature needs our help to recover, so the focus of parts 6 and 7 is to give communities a say if their local authority plans to take down a beloved neighbourhood tree, and public authorities will be required to ensure they conserve and enhance nature across the board.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[George Eustice]

I will make some progress.

Landowners will be able to agree conservation covenants with charities and other bodies, so they can be assured that subsequent landowners will be required to continue the sustainable stewardship they have started. The Bill will require developers to provide a 10% increase for nature, giving them the clarity they need to do their bit for the environment, while building the homes we need across our country.

Nature recovery networks will join up space for species across our country, with local nature recovery strategies capturing local knowledge and mapping habitat hotspots, so that we can target investment where it will have the greatest impact.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[George Eustice]

I will give way one more time.

[Philip Dunne]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is being generous in giving way. I apologise for not being able to speak in this debate as I have a Westminster Hall debate at 2.30 pm.

Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that there will be coherence between the environmental land management scheme presented in the Agriculture Bill and empowering people to be supported through the nature recovery schemes?

[George Eustice]

Yes, that is what we will be doing. Indeed, the design of our future environmental land management scheme will have a local component, and we want to make sure that what we do to promote nature through ELM is consistent with the local nature recovery strategies.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[George Eustice]

I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.

[Chris Grayling]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way.

This is one of the most important parts of the Bill. We need to restore habitats in this country, with a particular focus on those species—birds, hedgehogs and others—that have declined so dramatically in numbers. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the mandate that goes with these measures, both for the new agency and for local authorities, will focus on helping those species to recover, particularly by recreating the habitats that will enable it to happen?

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and the Bill will require local authorities to have their own strategies for biodiversity and for nature recovery. As he identifies, these are exactly the types of issues that we want them to address.

Before I close, I will highlight three new additions to the Bill since it was introduced in the previous Parliament. Clause 19 will mean that, when introducing a Bill, every Secretary of State in every future UK Government will have to include on the face of that Bill a statement on whether the new primary legislation will have the effect of reducing existing levels of environmental protection.

The second addition is that the Bill will create a new power to implement the Government’s manifesto commitment to end the exporting of polluting plastic waste to non-OECD countries. We will consult industry, non-governmental organisations and local authorities on specific restrictions or prohibitions.

Thirdly, clause 20 will require the Government to take stock biennially of significant developments in international legislation on the environment and then publish a review.

In conclusion, this Government are committed to leaving the environment in a better state than we found it, whether through planting 30,000 hectares of trees a year by the end of this Parliament, transforming our approach to agriculture, tackling air pollution or improving our waste management. This Bill will create the framework to set a long-term course for our country to drive environmental improvement, and I commend it to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

A large number of colleagues want to contribute to this debate, so I give warning that there will be an immediate seven-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

14:06

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

The climate crisis is the most pressing issue facing our planet. The actions we take in the next few years will determine whether we can address the climate emergency or whether we pass on to our children the rotten inheritance of living on a dying planet. It is therefore with great responsibility that we debate this Bill.

The Government are calling this a “landmark Bill” and “world-leading legislation,” but I fear that is not quite right. The Secretary of State should be more honest, because this still seems like a draft Bill—a Bill that is not quite there. This is an okay Bill, but by no means the groundbreaking legislation we have been promised.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Does he share my concern and disappointment that the Secretary of State did not mention part 8? Part 8 refers to the potential for divergence from the incredibly important regulations on the chemical industry that affect our entire manufacturing sector, not just the chemical industry itself. Does he share my concern that part 8 has the ability to diverge, with serious consequences for most of our economy?

[Luke Pollard]

The details on regression and non-regression are an important part of this Bill. We need to make sure we maintain our high standards, because those high standards, especially in the chemical industry, drive jobs and employment right across the country. Any risk of divergence affects the ability of those products to be sold overseas, which affects the ability of jobs to be held back in our country. I am glad my hon. Friend has raised that issue.

Some hon. Members will remember when Parliament adopted Labour’s motion to declare a climate emergency. For me, it presents us with a very simple challenge: now that Parliament has declared a climate emergency, what are we doing differently? It is a challenge to us as individuals and to businesses, but it is especially a challenge to lawmakers, Ministers and regulators.

Because the climate crisis is real, we need bolder, swifter action to decarbonise our economy and to protect vulnerable habitats. We need to recognise that the crisis is not just about carbon, although it is. It is about other greenhouse gases, too, and it is an ecological emergency, with our planet’s animals, birds and insect species in decline and their habitats under threat.

The water we drink, the food we consume and the fish in our seas are all affected by pollutants, from plastics to chemicals. As we have seen from the floods caused by Storms Ciara and Dennis, the climate crisis is also leading to more extreme weather more often and with more severe consequences.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The National Flood Forum has noted that extreme and flash flooding will be one of the greatest effects of the climate crisis. In my constituency, we have experienced unprecedented flooding, and the River Taff’s levels rose by more than a metre above all previous records. If that is not a wake-up call, I do not know what is. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to act urgently to secure better climate protections, to ensure that all other towns, villages and cities across the world are not impacted in the way my community has been this week?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and for all the work that she and her Welsh colleagues have been doing in supporting communities that are under water. We need much firmer action. We need a proper plan for flooding that reverses the austerity cuts made to our flood defences, and that removes the requirement for match funding which favours affluent communities over poorer ones. We also need urgent action from the Government to address the worrying aspects of the legacy of the coal industry in Wales, which could result in a real disaster if action is not taken. I encourage her to carry on campaigning on that.

As my hon. Friend has mentioned, Britain is not unique in the challenges facing us in terms of the climate catastrophe. In many cases, what will happen in the global south will be even more disastrous than what is happening in the UK. That is why action cannot wait.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of concerns that the Bill does not focus enough on the UK’s global footprint, so does he agree that the Government should introduce a mandatory due diligence mechanism, which would help to reduce the UK’s global footprint?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is a good reminder that one way in which we have decarbonised in the past few years has simply been by exporting our carbon; we export not only waste, but the production of the most carbon-intensive products that we use. The hon. Gentleman raises a good point.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Luke Pollard]

I will make some progress before taking further interventions, mindful of the people who are to follow.

As a nation, we need a gold-standard Environment Bill. I agree with the Minister that we need world-leading legislation, but this is not it. This still looks like a draft Bill; there has not been complete pre-legislative scrutiny for the entire Bill, which I think it needs; it lacks coherence as between its different sections; and it lacks the ambition to tackle the climate crisis as a whole with a comprehensive and renewed strategy. Labour will be a critical friend to Ministers during this process. We will be not be opposing the Bill today, but in that spirit we hope that Ministers will look seriously at adopting the measures we will put forward to improve and strengthen it, especially in Committee.

I have a concern about the positioning of the Bill: it has been spun so hard by successive Governments, and Secretaries of State in particular, that it cannot possibly deliver the grand soundbites that it has been set up as doing. That means that the heavy lifting required now to address our decarbonisation efforts and protect our communities may be hampered, because the Bill will not be able to deliver on those lofty promises. I worry that unless we match those grand soundbites with determined action, we will be failing our children and the communities we are here to serve.

In the time left, I want to cover three key areas of concern about the Bill. The first relates to Labour’s belief that non-regression in environmental standards must be a legal requirement. The second relates to how the new Office for Environmental Protection needs to be strengthened, and the third relates to how the ambition of Government press releases needs to be translated into genuine delivery in the Bill. First, on standards and targets, we were promised during the election that the Government would not lower our food standards, despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary, in post-Brexit trade deals. As we have already seen with the debates on the Agriculture Bill, Ministers have chosen to leave the door open for the undercutting of British farm and food standards in post-Brexit trade deals. The new Environment Secretary cannot even guarantee that chlorinated chicken or lactic acid-washed chicken will not be allowed into Britain as a result of the US trade deal. The rough ride he got with the National Farmers Union this morning will just be the start if he does not come to the realisation that many of us on both sides of this House have, that the commitment that he and others have given must be put into law. We cannot allow our standards to be undercut, and that principle of not allowing our standards to be undercut applies to this Bill too. We need to ensure that non-regression on environmental standards with the EU is a floor that we must not go below.

[Geraint Davies]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I am going to make a bit of progress, but I will come back to my hon. Friend in a moment if I can.

We simply cannot allow our environmental standards to be undercut in the same way as our food and animal welfare standards risk being undercut with trade deals. We need to ensure that we have measures approaching dynamic alignment with the European Union so that Britain is not seen as a country with lower standards than our European friends. Lower regulatory standards and lower animal welfare standards, especially on imported food, would see damage to ecosystems and habitats and a downward pressure on regulation in future, which would harm our efforts to decarbonise our economy. I want to see the lofty words said by all the Ministers on the Front Bench and the Prime Minister about non-regression put in the Bill. Where is the legal commitment to non-regression on environmental protections that the British people have asked for? Why is it not clearly in the Bill? If we are to have any hope of tackling the climate emergency in a meaningful way, we need to be aiming towards net zero by 2030, not by 2050.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

On net zero by 2030, does the hon. Gentleman not recognise what the Committee on Climate Change and Baroness Brown recognise, which is that reaching net zero by 2050 will be a huge challenge for this country? Blithely throwing around “2030” as though this is easy is doing a disservice not just this House, but to the people watching.

[Luke Pollard]

I am a big fan of the hon. Gentleman’s Instagram feed and follow it with great passion, and sometimes I feel a bit disappointed by interventions such as that. We cannot afford not to hit net zero by 2030, but the Government are currently on track for 2099. A far-off date many, moons away will not deal with the climate emergency and will not protect our habitats that need protecting. That drive needs to be there, though we know that for some sectors achieving net zero target by 2030 will be very challenging, and for some achieving it by 2050 will be very challenging, with agriculture being one of those sectors. The NFU’s plan to hit net zero by 2040 is very challenging. If sectors are to deliver net zero by any date, we will need some sectors to go faster and further than others to create carbon headroom, with the requirement that that progress is not double-counted in carbon calculations. Sadly, this supposedly world-leading Environment Bill does not have a single target in it. It contains no duty on Ministers to ensure that Britain decarbonises and stops the climate crisis getting any worse.

Secondly, I turn to the Office for Environmental Protection—the proposed new regulator. I know from previous debates that some Conservative Members are not too keen on the idea of a new Government outfit created in this space, but I agree with Ministers that we need a robust regulator. Sadly, the one being proposed in the Bill is not strong enough in our view. We need it to have teeth, and a remit that is unaffected by Government patronage. It needs to carefully consider the science and to have a bite that would make Ministers think twice about missing their targets. That is what the Office for Environmental Protection should be, but, sadly, that is not what the Bill envisages.

The new regulator does not have true independence from Government. It has no legal powers to hold the Government to account in the way it needs to. Approving its chair via a Government-led Select Committee, on which the Government have a majority, is not sufficient. Given that Ministers have been dragged time and time again through the courts for missing air quality targets, how can we ensure that this regulator would make that a thing of the past and not a repeat prescription?

We need Ministers to do as Members on both sides have suggested today and adopt World Health Organisation targets for air quality and particulates. We need regulators to have teeth to make sure that those targets are enforced, and we need to make sure that the new regulator sits and works in a complementary way in and with what is an already quite congested regulatory space on the environment.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Prospect the union has written to me expressing its concern that only 100 staff will be employed by the Office for Environmental Protection. Does the shadow Minister share my concerns about this under-resourcing?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Since 2010 we have seen that quangos and regulators can still exist but their ability to deliver that regulation and the quality of that regulation depends on the resources. If a political lever is being applied by Ministers—as I have said before, I have a lot of time for the current Environment Secretary, but that does not necessarily mean that anyone who follows him would have the same approach—if budgets were to be changed and if political patronage were to be applied in terms of the OEP’s leadership and board, that could affect the outcomes. Resourcing does matter.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Luke Pollard]

I will not take any further interventions, so that I can finish my remarks. [Interruption.] I say that, but that would have been a good time for one. I come to the section of my speech about water, unless someone would like to intervene briefly. [Laughter.]

[Bim Afolami]

I do so in the spirit of kindness, but there is a serious point here. Luton airport is in the constituency next to mine, and one concern that many of my constituents have as a result is about air quality. All of our constituencies will have separate issues. What is the hon. Gentleman’s view as to how we can use this Bill to apply to specific instances at specific times—for example, to deal with poor air quality around Luton airport?

[Luke Pollard]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman and will like more of his Instagram posts as a reward for that kind intervention. We do need to address air quality around airports and transport modes in particular, but the ability to do that is predicated on the data, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made the point that he did earlier. It is important to make sure that we take action based on reliable evidence, which means that we need the right testing stations. At the moment there are far too few air-quality monitoring stations. We need to go forward by embracing having monitoring stations on more schools, more GP surgeries and in more areas with a greater level of public dwelling. That is how we should address the issue. For airports in particular, it is about surface access and making sure that people can get to airports more easily.

I have been coughing and spluttering for a while, so I will rush through the rest of my speech so that I do not take up anyone else’s time. As Conservative Members have said, the part of the Bill that deals with water does not go far enough to deal with some of the issues relating to water poverty, or do anything to address per capita consumption or meaningful water labelling or to solve the challenge of where we are going to get the water that we need for the homes we need to build in future. For the Bill to be genuinely world leading, I would have hoped that the Government would adopt some of the current groundbreaking ideas in water policy, such as water neutrality, which is the idea that for every new home that we build we will not provide any more water resources—they will be offset by water efficiency in our existing housing stock. There are some really grand opportunities and fantastic water innovations, which is why we need the Bill to go further on water efficiency in our homes, actions on leaks and investment in water-efficient technologies. We also need a war on leaky loos, as that is important.

I would like the Government to look at a commitment whereby the water industry moves to using 100% renewable energy within the next five years. Ministers already have the power to do that, given the regulatory powers of Ofwat and DEFRA.

Finally, the Secretary of State has already mentioned that the Bill includes a section on trees that will allow trees to be chopped down in a different way. The Bill does not include any new powers to plant trees. That seems to be an omission: I imagine Members from all parties will look at the Bill and say, “Surely that’s not right.” Given that the Government are missing their tree-planting target by 71% already, further powers to chop down trees do not seem to be the priority. We need to look into not only how to plant more trees but at different types of biodiversity and habitats, and make sure that carbon is sequestered in the right way. That is really important, because if we are to address the loss of species, both in the UK and globally, we need to take action.

COP26 provides us with a global platform to showcase the very best of our global thinking, our action and our legislation. Currently, the Bill does not deliver the groundbreaking global platform that we need to take into COP26. I hope that Ministers will take seriously the concerns that I have raised and that my Opposition colleagues will address when they speak later, because there is a real desire on both sides of the House to improve the legislation and make it as genuinely world leading as the Secretary of State aspires for it to be. To that end, I invite the Secretary of State to work with us to improve the legislation; simply voting down every amendment so that we keep a clean sheet will not deliver that. I hope that he will take that challenge in the spirit in which it is meant so that we can work together to improve the legislation. The climate crisis needs to be addressed and it will not be sufficiently addressed if we allow the Bill to pass unaltered.

14:23

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

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on the Second Reading of the Environment Bill. I am pleased that the Government have reintroduced the Bill and I am also pleased that there is a degree of co-operation with the Opposition. It is important that we get the Bill absolutely right.

In the previous Parliament, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of the previous Bill, and I am pleased that the legislation has moved towards some of our recommendations. For example, I welcome the fact that the Government will set a multi-annual budget for the Office for Environmental Protection and have included climate change within its remit. We just need to make sure that there is enough money for the OEP to run properly.

I wish to make three points about how the Bill can be improved. First, concerns have been expressed that in some areas, such as target setting, the Bill might allow a weakening of standards—for example, on air quality. I welcome the plan to set a target for particulate matter, but it is planned only for 2022, and we do not know how ambitious the target might be. At this early stage, I urge the Government to set an example and match the World Health Organisation guidelines for dangerous emissions such as particulate matter. The British Heart Foundation estimates that the number of heart attacks and stroke deaths linked to air pollution could exceed 160,000 by 2030, unless action is taken. DEFRA has already carried out a study that shows that it can achieve World Health Organisation standards of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030, so I urge the Government to set that target. Let us put that target into law now and use the Bill to improve human health as well as our natural environment.

Secondly, it is vital that we set up the Office for Environmental Protection now that we are outside the EU; however, it needs to be independent of Government and have the teeth to bite. The OEP will not be independent if it is constantly worrying about having its budgets cut, so will the Government commit to a multi-annual budget settlement, the enshrinement in law of which I would welcome?

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I think we all agree that we certainly do not want an OEP that is a toothless tiger; we want one that can react to and govern the climate and nature emergency in which we find ourselves. We need clarity as to whether the OEP will be set up, particularly in England and Northern Ireland, as of 1 January 2021.

[Neil Parish]

Naturally, there is the matter of how the OEP works with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, but I agree that it needs to have those powers. I am sure that the Secretary of State will have listened to the hon. Lady’s intervention.

The appointments process in the setting up of the OEP should follow the Office for Budget Responsibility model, in which the Treasury Committee can veto the Chancellor’s choice. I am sure that my great friend the Secretary of State would not mind giving away some of his new fiefdom to the EFRA Committee, but we will wait and see. I offer that to him—or perhaps he might offer it to me.

My final point on the OEP is that my Committee concluded that judicial review is not the most appropriate enforcement mechanism for environmental cases because it focuses on process rather than outcomes and leaves the decision making to the lawyers. That is a really important point. I welcome the tribunal model in the Bill, because I hope that it will allow environmental specialists to have a role. We need practical solutions for when the Government are in breach—such as we have with air-pollution plans—rather than lawyers and going through process all the time. We really want to make sure that we get the experts in place.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend believe it is necessary to make sure that there is a time limit for the investigations that the OEP might undertake, so that we can see a speedy reaction to any issues that may arise?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We do not want to waste years in the courts; these things have to be done quickly. We need practical solutions for when the Government are in breach, just as we have with air pollution plans. I am still concerned that the environmental review outlined in the Bill is just a judicial review by another name. We have a great opportunity to build on our strong commitment to the environment. We all want to leave the environment in a better place than we found it. Will the Secretary of State look again at some of our Select Committee proposals, because the Bill can still be strengthened in many areas? One final point on the OEP is that the judicial review is not the most appropriate enforcement mechanism for environmental cases. We therefore need a more practical solution.

Finally, I ask the Government, as we have made a commitment to improve the environment, to look not only at the Environment Bill, but at the Agriculture Bill and the Fishing Bill, because they all fit together. As yet another round of flooding seems likely in the future, the Environment Bill will be important, as will be the Agriculture Bill. Fitting the two together with new land management projects will be a very good way of making sure that we can deliver a catchment-area basis for flooding. We can also improve our environment and work with the water companies on holding more water and on making sure that the reservoirs do not overflow. We can also look at the rewetting of peatland. All of those things can be done, but they must be linked with the Environment Bill.

Finally—I am sure that this is in the minds of Ministers and the Secretary of State—we must ensure that we join up the Environment Bill with the Agriculture and Fishing Bills, and also make sure that, as we drive towards a better environment, we do so across the whole of Government. This cannot just be done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because things such as delivering on air quality can only be achieved across Government.

I look forward to the Bill being read a Second time. It is taking us in the right direction, but let us also look at the independence of the OEP. We also need to make sure that tribunals deal not just with legal matters, but with environmental matters. With that, I very much welcome the Second Reading of this Bill.

14:31

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

I refer hon. Members to my speech on 28 October when we had the dress rehearsal for this Bill—at least we all know our lines now. None the less, the concerns remain the same, because they have not been addressed: the Bill still lacks in ambition; the Office of Environmental Protection still lacks teeth; the Ministry of Defence is still exempt; the armed forces can still cause environmental havoc; national security is still off limits for environmental consideration; renewable energy still does not get the big licks it should be getting; and this Bill is still, in my view, insipid and weak.

Worse than that, clause 18 should force Ministers to consider the environment when making policy, but, as I have already said, it exempts the military and national security. It also exempts tax, spending and the allocation of resources. In other words, it exempts the main thrusts of Government policy—the biggest tools in the Government cupboard. If resource considerations do not take environmental concerns into account, we will hardly be driving Government policy towards good environmental goals.

If taxation policy does not have a weather eye on environmental policy, it misses the opportunity to ensure that the polluter pays. It misses the chance to engage Government’s biggest lever of public policy. Equally, if spending decisions are not environmentally aware, then the Government are not environmentally aware. If the Government were serious about delivering environmental benefits, that would have been the key point of the Bill —it would have been proclaiming a commitment to change, to improvement, to making a future unlike the past.

If there really were an environmental heart to this Government, it would be at the heart of this Bill. It would tie all governmental resourcing decisions into improving the environment, and into considering the environmental impact of policies. It would put the environment at the middle of decision making. It did not happen; it has not happened. This Bill is just ticking a box to say that the gap left by Brexit is being filled, but that filler is not reaching the edges of that gap.

Even the hiatus of an election and the inordinately long time it has taken to bring this Bill back have not offered the Government enough time to make improvements to the Bill. Still, there is nothing that will force England’s water companies to address the leakage from their pipes to conserve that resource. The clue to decent performance there, of course, is to remove the profit motive and have water publicly owned, as it is in Scotland.

The Bill still does not lend strength to enforcement. There are still no strong compliance powers for the new watchdog, the OEP, in the Bill and those that it will have will be restricted to wagging a finger at backsliding public bodies. This was an opportunity to make a clear case for environmental improvement and protection. This was an opportunity to lay down markers on protecting the marine environment, putting protections in place for the oceans, improving river health and securing decent bathing waters.

[Sir Charles Walker]

Let me just say something about protecting the marine environment. By the way, the hubris of this House is just stunning when it comes to the environment. We talk about saving the world, but instead, in England, we have trashed our chalk streams. In Scotland, the salmon farming industry has entirely destroyed the sea lochs of the west coast of Scotland, made them barren of sea life, and destroyed the salmon runs coming in and out of the rivers. If we could perhaps act locally, we might be able to talk in a more informed way globally.

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. Certainly, there is much hubris in this Chamber about such issues. Something that I will come on to is the Scottish Government’s environmental strategy, which was released in the past couple of days, in which issues such as those are certainly being looked at.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), for whom I have a lot of respect and with whom I have a lot of similarities in terms of our love of angling, I say that the salmon fishing industry has been hugely important to large parts of the west coast of Scotland, not least the Western Isles. Sometimes when we talk about hubris, we need to think about the local economy as well, which is so important for our country.

[Deidre Brock]

An excellent point and I thank my hon. Friend for making it.

Brexit was supposed to give the UK Government the power to do things differently—to imagine a better way to do things. Whether Brexit was ever capable of doing that is a moot point, but it does not really matter, because the Government do not have the ambition to try. They do not have the imagination to see a better way to do things, or the determination to improve lives. There could be ambitious, legally binding limits on plastic pollution, and limits on how much could be produced, used and discarded. There could be incentives, perhaps even tax incentives, for retailers to cut the plastic. If they cannot even rate measures to improve the health of the oceans as being worthy of putting in this Bill, where really then is the commitment to addressing climate change?

[Geraint Davies]

Does the hon. Lady agree that this needs to sit alongside a fiscal strategy that taxes virgin plastic, that has a go at diesel particulates and, indeed, at dangerous chemicals? Unless the Department works closely with the Treasury to deliver that, we will simply not be able to deliver on our ambition.

[Deidre Brock]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. This really needs to be taken in the round, and I see little evidence of that in the Bill. Further to that, where are the measures to combat climate change in the Bill? The climate emergency gets lots of warm words from Whitehall, but it gets so little in the way of action. If an Environment Bill is not the place for addressing the biggest environmental issue of the day, where is?

[Wera Hobhouse]

On the issue of waste, may I ask the hon. Lady for cross-party support for the amendment that I am tabling on the obligation of local councils to provide traceability on the end destination of our household waste? In that way, the public can be confident that the recycling that we collect does not end up in the ocean or indeed in incinerators, but actually gets recycled. That is the amendment that I will put forward, and I am looking for cross-party support. Will she provide it?

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. That is certainly something that I am prepared to look at, but, of course, local councils and local authorities are an issue for England and Wales only. Those issues are devolved to Scotland, so it is not necessarily something that we would be able to support in actuality, but I certainly agree with the principle of what she said.

I was talking previously about targets and real action—or lack of targets and real action—so where are the provisions to encourage tree planting? During the election, so many pledges were bandied back and forth about how many trees would be planted under a Tory or Labour Government. Hundreds of millions were promised, but here is the first opportunity to do something about that, and there is nothing—not a squirt. I find it amazing that Scotland has only around a third of the landmass of the UK, but four fifths of the tree planting in the UK is in Scotland. Let us at least see some indication that the UK Government will at least pretend to follow suit.

While we are on the subject, how about implementing policies to discourage the importation of products that have caused deforestation elsewhere, or which have contributed to the pressure to clear forest? How about a commitment to write that into trade deals? How about placing an obligation on businesses to consider such things in the course of their operations? In fact, the real thing that is missing from the Bill is a clear governmental intention to force businesses to get on board with improving the environment. It is as if the Government think that businesses will not be robust enough to handle that compliance. If the Government will not lead, they cannot expect people, businesses and organisations to do it instead. Ministers have an obligation to find ways to really drive this agenda forward, and so far they have failed in that.

The old 25-year environment plan is outdated and needs to be refreshed. The Bill—the reprise—starts its life outdated and in need of improvement. Fortunately, there is a shining example of excellence not too far away—I am not talking about Wales, to be clear—which is a ready-made vision of a future where compliance with environmental objectives is seen to be the norm, rather than the exception, and where Ministers are not afraid to take on leadership roles and are prepared to ensure that businesses and organisations take action too. Scotland’s environmental strategy, released this week as I mentioned earlier, is a plan worth copying. It is a plan worth following: it has vision, leadership, education and action all rolled up into one. I urge Members to take the time to read it. It is so good that Charles Dundas, the chair of Scottish Environment LINK, a former Lib Dem councillor and colleague of mine, said:

“It is fantastic to see such a bold vision for the protection of Scotland’s environment, which, as the Scottish Government says, is fundamental to our future.”

I tell Ministers that it is not too late to have some real ambition in the Bill. It is not a done deal and they still have time to make wholesale changes and massive improvements to make this a Bill that they can be proud of. The political will is all that is needed. They would find agreement, as we have already heard, on both sides of the Chamber, and they would have the pleasure and privilege of knowing that they actually contributed during their careers. Do something fabulous, Ministers! Do something you will be proud of in your old age, amend the Bill and make it fit for purpose.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It is a pleasure to call Rob Butler to make his maiden speech.

14:43

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to have the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate on the Environment Bill, which will have far-reaching implications for our economy and our society, heralding a cleaner, greener nation.

There is only one place to begin my remarks today, and that is in paying tribute to my predecessor, Sir David Lidington. David was the Member of Parliament for Aylesbury for fully 27 years. He held senior ministerial roles, culminating as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of State for the Cabinet Office during some particularly testing times for the last Government. Whenever I mention David, the response is the same—that he is a man who is decent, dedicated and thoughtful, a gentleman and the epitome of the public servant. When a new colleague was talking to me about David recently, he had just one question, “Do you have an equally big brain?” My answer was simple—“No.” After all, David led his Cambridge college to victory on “University Challenge”, not once but twice, whereas the only TV quiz show I competed on twice was “Blankety Blank”.

[Bim Afolami]

Is that true?

[Rob Butler]

It is true.

David did, of course, have the advantage of serving the magnificent constituency of Aylesbury, which I now have the great privilege to represent. Aylesbury has been a part of my life for longer than I can remember. I was born in the Royal Bucks Hospital in the town, and my first home was in Bedgrove. My roots in the constituency go back even further. My great-grandfather was the village blacksmith in Bledlow Ridge. Aylesbury can trace its history to the iron age, has held a market since Anglo-Saxon times and has been the proud county town of Buckinghamshire for close to 500 years.

The historic quarter of the town centre retains its charm and appeal to locals and visitors alike. It includes statues of Benjamin Disraeli, the father of one nation Conservatism, and of John Hampden, commemorating his role asserting the rights of Parliament against Charles I. There is also now a statue of David Bowie, who in the 1970s staged the world debut performances of two albums at the legendary Friars music club in the town. Visitors should be aware that the statue bursts into song on the hour: more than one unsuspecting tourist has had rather a shock when out of nowhere comes a rendition of “Ziggy Stardust”.

One historic building that is rarely remarked upon is the prison, a Victorian edifice dating from 1847. It is a place that holds particular interest for me, however, as until recently I served as a non-executive director of HM Prison and Probation Service and as the magistrate member of the Sentencing Council. I hope to continue that work in Parliament, focusing particularly on two themes—making our prison estate fit for purpose and putting victims right at the heart of the criminal justice system. Perhaps I may say at this point that I regard our prison and probation officers as the unsung heroes of our public services.

Among the more notorious inmates of Aylesbury prison were the Great Train Robbers, which brings me neatly to HS2. As the home of the Aylesbury duck, it has been said by many of my constituents that HS2 is simply quackers. Seriously though, as the Member of Parliament for Aylesbury and speaking in the debate on the Environment Bill, I would not be forgiven by my constituents if I did not mention HS2. Opposition to the project has long been the single biggest issue in my constituency. Thousands of residents are both disappointed and frustrated by the decision to proceed, not least because of the harm HS2 will do to the environment, including the destruction of more than 100 ancient woodlands. The actions of HS2 Ltd and its contractors have already provoked many complaints to me, and I take this opportunity to state that I will be unwavering in holding them to account.

Aylesbury is setting itself up to thrive throughout the 21st century. Faced with the same challenges as many medium-sized market towns, not least the decline of the traditional high street, there is a passionate ambition to become a real community and commercial hub where people want to live, work, visit and invest. Already the Waterside theatre and the Exchange have brought life back to the canal side. There has been significant house building, including across Aylesbury Vale, where the population has grown by 10% in the last five years. There is far more to come, with projections of a further 16,000 homes in and around the town by 2033. So I welcome the commitment in the Bill to require all development to be accompanied by a 10% net gain in biodiversity. The Aylesbury garden town project goes even further in its vision to be not just green but—I am delighted to say—blue, with plans to create a garden-way encircling the town and to uncover hidden waterways.

The people of Aylesbury are rightly proud that it was the birthplace of the Paralympic movement, and they now have pioneering plans to make the town fully accessible to all.

There is much more than just the town of Aylesbury in the constituency. About a third of its population live in villages and hamlets, wonderful places such as Wendover, Stokenchurch, Aston Clinton, Weston Turville and Hughenden. Two thirds of the area is agricultural, and I have already very much enjoyed meeting farmers in the constituency, and not just because they agreed to put up gigantic posters of me during the election campaign. Many of those farmers are enthusiastic about the Bill. They recognise their unique role in the stewardship of the land and preservation of the countryside, and I am confident that the Bill will enable our farmers to ensure our food security and run sustainable businesses, while playing their part in ensuring the highest environmental standards.

The farms, villages and hamlets in my constituency lie in beautiful countryside, but they face the same challenges as many other rural areas, including access to health services, buses and broadband. Although Buckinghamshire is often regarded as affluent, my constituency also has pockets of deprivation, and I will strive to ensure a fairer deal for everyone I represent because, like each and every one of us in this Chamber, I am only here because of my constituents. As a former journalist, I am acutely aware of the need for accountability to them and to the public in general. Politics has not had a good press in recent years and it is beholden on us to improve that, not for the sake of a good headline or hundreds of likes on a tweet, but in order to rebuild faith and confidence that our institutions and representatives truly uphold democracy and deliver in the best interests of all the people.

I am honoured to be in this place at this pivotal time in our country’s history, when we forge new relationships and trade links around the world, and set out robust and far-reaching new laws to preserve and protect our part of the world through this Environment Bill. I conclude by expressing my sincere gratitude to the people of the Aylesbury constituency for putting their trust and faith in me to represent them here.

14:50

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

What a great pleasure it is to follow the maiden speech of the new hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler). I look forward to him bringing in his “Blankety Blank” chequebook and pen so that we can all admire it in the Tea Room. May I also pay a very warm tribute to his predecessor, David Lidington, who I shadowed for a while? I have to say that I did not actually enjoy shadowing him—not because of his intellect, which was clearly there, but because he was a thoroughly decent person, and I did not like to argue or battle with him because that just was not his way or mine. I congratulate the new hon. Member for Aylesbury and welcome him to this place.

I also welcome the Environment Bill as a step in the right direction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) has said, in tackling the existential threat that we face. After years of delay, we cannot afford to wait any longer to pass robust climate legislation matching the scale of the emergency. A year and a half ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made it clear that we had to act urgently over the next 12 years or forever miss the opportunity to prevent climate catastrophe, but nothing has changed since that announcement, except that we have lost one and a half of those 12 years. While the Government have been preoccupied with the chaos of Brexit, natural wildlife continues to disappear at an alarming rate, flooding is at a record high and fossil fuel production continues to damage our climate. We keep getting told that weather extremes are unprecedented and one-in-100-year occurrences—and then they happen again the next year.

I welcome the opportunity to debate this Bill, but the Government must address its significant limitations. I share the widespread concern expressed by the climate groups that there are significant gaps in the Bill, weakening our capacity to take urgent action. I also generally worry that, despite all the assurances to the contrary, the Conservatives are using the opportunity of Brexit to reduce standards and environmental protections and enforcements, as the Labour party warned they would seek to do.

One of the great pleasures of representing my hometown of Chester is representing Chester Zoo, which is more than simply a tourist attraction; it is leading the way in conservation and wildlife protection, and is a centre of global expertise and leadership in conservation and environmentalism. The zoo’s work spans a wide and diverse range of conservation challenges, with a specific concern about protection of biodiversity. The zoo’s representatives tell me that they welcome the Bill, but share the concern that biodiversity protections could be diluted or ignored as local authorities struggle to implement targets, and they emphasised that the climate emergency is also a biodiversity emergency.

The introduction of a mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain requirement for all new developments is a step in the right direction, but it puts the responsibility for implementing and enforcing biodiversity targets on the shoulder of local authorities, which are already on their knees due to the central Government-imposed cuts that have crippled local government since 2010. Local authorities have neither the funding, nor any longer the capacity, to enforce these crucial biodiversity targets. My local authority of Cheshire West and Chester has lost £300 million since 2010, forcing it to make difficult financial choices. For example, at least half of its expenditure goes on adult social care and care for the vulnerable. It is unrealistic for the Government to further burden councils with the responsibility for enforcing the 10% biodiversity net gain without providing additional funding or expert staff.

Habitat and species loss is a devastating result of climate change that cannot be overlooked. Will the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to address this shortfall and provide a realistic solution to the continued devastation of natural biodiversity across the country? Would the Government be willing to consider making the 10% increase in biodiversity a minimum requirement to encourage developers to exceed the target? And I have to ask: is the planning system really the correct vehicle for restoring UK nature and wildlife? It has consistently failed to address other areas of societal challenges, such as the provision of affordable housing, so why do the Government think it is fit for purpose as a means of reversing the destruction of UK wildlife and habitats?

I have concerns about the Office for Environmental Protection. As we have already heard, perhaps the most disappointing part of the Bill is its failure to create a truly independent environmental watchdog with any enforcement capabilities. The OEP’s budget is decided by the Government, meaning that the office will be under the control of the same Government that it is designed to be holding to account. The lack of accountability is astonishing and removes any sort of independence, allowing the Government to overlook environmental regulations whenever it is politically beneficial.

As we reach the crucial tipping point for climate change, the Government will be preoccupied with new trade deals, cosying up to the climate change denying President Trump in a desperate attempt to secure any trade deal—however bad—to justify their exit from the European Union. The OEP is a toothless environmental watchdog with no capacity to issue fines or stand independently from the Government to ensure that environmental protections are upheld. A further weakness identified by both Chester Zoo and the World Wildlife Fund is that the OEP has no jurisdiction over the private sector, particularly fossil fuel companies. The UK has the biggest fossil fuel subsidies in the EU, with £10.5 billion a year in support for fossil fuels, and the Tory party accepted generous donations from fossil fuel investors during the election, at the same time as cutting support for solar and onshore wind.

The absence of proposals to promote ethical procurement and sustainable, deforestation-free supply chains is a missed opportunity, and will prevent the Bill from achieving its stated goal of being an “historic step change”. We should be following the lead of Chester, led by Chester Zoo, which has developed the sustainable palm oil city model, making Chester the first city in the world to adopt sustainable palm oil city status. Some producers and retailers such as Iceland—the shop, not the country—have chosen to step away from using palm oil at all. I welcome their commitment to preventing deforestation, especially in south-east Asia, but I also note the view that the adoption of sustainable palm oil production, as promoted by Chester Zoo and others, would be a more long-term solution.

The UK has a chance to lead the way globally in tackling the climate emergency. We cannot afford to be less ambitious. I hope that the Government will recognise the constructive points that my hon. Friends and I are making. The Bill has a long way to go before it can successfully uphold the promise to leave nature in a better state for the next generation, because at the moment it seems that we have a Government who are reneging on their promise to maintain standards in environmental protection and enforcement after Brexit, just as we warned they would do. And if they do that on environmental commitments, they will do it on food, consumer standards and employment protections. As the Bill progresses and we seek to amend it, I hope that the Government prove me wrong and act on these concerns.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It is a pleasure to call Cherilyn Mackrory to make her maiden speech.

14:49

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

It is a true honour to be standing here today as the newly elected representative for Truro and Falmouth—a whirlwind for me and my little family, as I was a candidate only for five weeks before polling day. Cornwall, my adopted home—but to which my husband, my daughter and even my dog are native—has welcomed me warmly, and I would like to show my gratitude to my constituents by being a force for good in this role and a genuine help to all residents, regardless of how or whether they voted in December.

I am happy to say that it is a pleasure to pay tribute to my predecessor. Sarah Newton entered this place in 2010 and has always been a staunch advocate for securing fairer funding for Cornwall. It is largely thanks to Sarah’s efforts, along with her Cornish colleagues at the time, that we are now expecting a women and children’s facility at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro, along with a further £450 million for the NHS in Cornwall. Sarah also ensured a stable future for Falmouth docks for the first time in years.

Sarah served as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, and spoke passionately in this place several times in defence of the most vulnerable people in our society. Colleagues across the House have spoken very fondly of Sarah, paying tribute particularly to her compassion and kindness. On this I can concur. Having been a candidate for such a short time before my election, I have found her help invaluable. She even put me up for my first week in Parliament, and that is going above and beyond. I am sure that Members across the House will join me in wishing Sarah all the very best for her future endeavours.

I am very lucky to represent Truro and Falmouth. It is a fantastic constituency, from the beautiful rugged and windswept north coast to the equally beautiful rolling and gentle south coast—there are no favourites here! It makes the bulk of its fortunes from fishing, farming and tourism. However, we also have exciting emerging industries such as geothermal energy, lithium extraction, and the potential for floating offshore wind farms—not forgetting theatre, breweries, surfing, sailing, a thriving arts and food culture, campuses for two universities, and more besides.

Falmouth was my first home when I came to Cornwall, and I can testify first hand as to why it regularly makes The Times “happiest places to live” lists. Last year, The Times described Falmouth as

“as close as Britain gets to the California/Barcelona city-by-the-sea lifestyle.”

I would agree, except more so once it stops raining. It has not actually stopped raining since August.

Falmouth boasts the third deepest natural harbour in the world after Sydney and Rio, which is why fishing and sailing exist alongside a healthy working docks—and that is so important to the economy. Cornwall has always been outward-looking and seafaring. Evidence of overseas trade exists as far back as the bronze age. In 1805, news of Britain’s victory and Nelson’s death at Trafalgar was landed at Falmouth and taken by stagecoach to London.

Truro is Cornwall’s only city. It is the base of Cornish local government, fantastic shopping, and, with the completion of the Hall for Cornwall later this year, also its centre for culture. The reopening of this hugely important establishment means that we can welcome over 200,000 people a year through its doors. It will also house space for creative start-ups. It is set to transform the centre of Truro, as well as being a game-changer for Cornwall as a whole.

My family is my inspiration—and by the way, I am lucky enough to have the best one of those as well. My mum and dad—Gordon and Olwyn Williams—and my big sisters have guided me through all my experiences and continue with their unending encouragement. It is the compassion that I have inherited from them that will drive me in my work in this place. My wonderful husband, Nick, is endlessly patient, and his determination for work defies belief for most people; and we have our precious daughter Chloe, whose future I want to help make the happiest it can be. I love them all, and I could not be doing this without their unwavering support. This is a definite team effort.

I am the wife of a hook-and-line fisherman with an under-10 metre vessel. When he rings to say that he is still an hour away from safety and the weather has taken a turn for the worse that was not forecast, I can tell you now that the dread is palpable. We need to champion our small boats in any fishing deal that is coming our way. Their job is precarious enough. We need to support our coastal communities to brave the elements and thrive in the 21st century. There are opportunities on the horizon, and we need to grab them with both hands and bring them home.

I am very proud to be part of this one nation Conservative party committed to being a world leader for conservation. I am also proud to represent the constituency where Surfers Against Sewage is located. It is one of the UK’s leading environmental organisations and has pioneered work to protect our seas and waterways from plastic pollution as well as to improve water quality. I have been passionate about looking after the natural environment for longer than I can remember. It has always been instinctive to me that this is just something we should do; we did not need to be told to do it.

This Environment Bill is bold. It will help to deliver the Government’s manifesto promise of the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on this earth, and I fully support its progress. I recommend much of its content, particularly with regard to waste management and nature recovery. I would like to see the south-west exceed the targets in it. I am very, very ambitious for this. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—my neighbour as the Member for Camborne and Redruth—on his new appointment and on his work to date.

I would like to see a bigger reduction in the consumption of single-use plastic. I think we can do this as a society. We do not need to spend resources clearing it up. It is going to take a culture change. We are all consumers and it has to come from us. We will need help from industry to make it convenient for consumers and also good value for money. That is the way we will make it happen. I would like to see greater checks and balances on our interim targets to ensure that we can stay on track in the short term as well as the long term. That is a recipe for success. I would like to see a greater commitment to managing our oceans. If we do not look after the marine environment, we will have no fishing industry in Cornwall. The saying is, “Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day, but teach him how to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime.”

The Cornish are innovative, bold, and incredibly capable. It is my job to make sure that Cornwall gets the investment, the levelling up of funding and a fair chance so that my constituents and our children have the opportunity to swim, not sink. There is so much for Cornwall and the great south-west to be ambitious about. My constituents are determined, driven, and by far the most adaptable people I have met, and it will be my job to help make sure that we are ambitious for the future.

15:05

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a huge pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who has just given an outstanding maiden speech in which she very clearly conveyed her passion and commitment to her constituents and her constituency. She made an incredibly poignant point about the precarious nature of seafaring. I wish her well in this House, and I know that she will be a very powerful advocate for her constituents for many, many years to come.

This Bill comes before Parliament at a time when our country—indeed, our planet—faces two major environmental crises: climate change and biodiversity collapse. The debate on the climate emergency here in the UK has shifted very rapidly from the fringes to the mainstream in just a matter of a few years. For those of us who represent communities such as the ones I am proud to represent in South Yorkshire that have recently been devasted by flooding, it is not difficult to understand why, because we are no longer talking about the existential threat to future generations but about the immediate threat to family homes and small businesses.

There is now close to universal agreement that the Government must take urgent action to address the climate emergency, and this Environment Bill represents their first real test. It is important to note, however, that regional and local government also has a crucial role to play—it cannot simply be left to Westminster and to Whitehall to tackle this crisis alone. To date, 287 councils and eight combined authorities, including my own, have declared a climate emergency. We understand the extent of the crisis, but we need the resources to make meaningful change.

This is an extensive Bill covering a wide range of issues, but I would like to focus my short contribution on tree planting. One point on which I hope we can all agree is the important role of trees in tackling this emergency. Trees capture carbon, reduce soil erosion, improve air quality, alleviate flooding, and support biodiversity. Expansion of our woodlands will be key if we are to be successful in preventing irreversible damage to the environment. Indeed, the Government’s Committee on Climate Change set a target of 17% to 19% woodland cover as a key part of the UK’s actions to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The requirement in the Bill for local highway authorities to consult members of the public before felling street trees will be welcomed by communities up and down the country. It is important, though, that this duty is properly resourced if it is to provide meaningful consultations.

However, it is disappointing to see that this Bill does not include a statutory requirement for the Government to produce a national tree strategy for England, as is the case in Scotland. Given that work is already well under way to develop an English tree strategy for consultation in the coming months, I hope the Government will consider amending the Bill so that it refers to the forthcoming strategy. This would send out a positive signal about the importance of trees and woodlands, and their important role in tackling the crises of climate and biodiversity. Furthermore, it would reinforce the commitments made in the Government’s own manifesto, in which they pledged to plant 30 million trees a year by 2025.

One way that the Government could demonstrate their resolution would be to act on the Woodland Trust’s emergency tree plan proposals, in which three key recommendations were put forward: first, to look after what we have by protecting and restoring existing trees and woodland; secondly, to create new policies, capacity and funding for woods and trees; and thirdly, to devolve more powers to local government.

A further measure that the Government could explore is to expand on the ambition and innovation shown by the northern forest initiative—a project spearheaded by the Woodland Trust and its community forest partners in the region. The forest will see 50 million trees planted over the next 25 years in the north of England, with more than 600,000 already in the ground. It is the perfect example of the kind of project we must deliver on if we are serious about reversing the damage done to the natural environment.

I have three asks of the Government in respect of the Bill and tree planting. First, will they ensure that they link this Bill, the Agriculture Bill and the national tree strategy, so that a coherent and unambiguous plan for increasing tree cover is achieved, as well as other environmental targets? Secondly, once the national tree strategy is published, will the Government amend the Bill, so that it refers to that strategy? Finally, will they commit to grow the northern forest?

This is a vital piece of legislation and an opportunity for the Government to show leadership on the global stage in the fight against the climate emergency. We cannot afford any more missed opportunities, and it is quite clear that the Bill still requires improvement. One way the Government could show that leadership is to firm up their commitments on tree planting.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Dr Ben Spencer to make his maiden speech.

15:10

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Seven years ago, working as a doctor on call at St Thomas’s Hospital, I looked across the river at this place and wondered what it would be like to be here—and now I know. It is remarkably similar to being on call, but permanently. Being a Member of Parliament is a great privilege and duty, and I would like to thank the people of Runnymede and Weybridge for putting their trust and faith in me. I will do my all to repay that trust. I would like to thank the people who work on and around the parliamentary estate, who have been so welcoming and discharge their duties with dedication, diligence and resolute professionalism.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Philip Hammond. Philip was a phenomenal Member of Parliament. He served his country and the people of Runnymede and Weybridge for over 22 years. He held many of the highest offices of state. It is rumoured that he, like me, was a teenage goth. It is true—I was—but I didn’t dye my hair though. While there are some key areas on which Philip and I do not agree, most of all he is a man of principle. When push came to shove, he stood by his principles, and that is the measure of a man.

I have heard many excellent maiden speeches from Members on both sides of the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, it probably will not surprise you that I have noticed a pattern: it would appear that everywhere, all over the country, is the most beautiful and pleasant place to live. I want to put it on record that Runnymede and Weybridge truly, truly, truly is the most beautiful and pleasant place to live. It is also central to the history of our nation. Magna Carta, signed over 800 years ago, was the birth of the rule of law in our country and, indeed, the world. This Parliament may be the mother of all Parliaments, but Runnymede is the mother of the rule of law.

When I walk through the Churchill arch and see the bomb damage from the second world war, I am reminded of Brooklands in Weybridge. It was in Brooklands, where the first racing track was built and which went on to become the site of an advanced aviation factory, that over 2,500 Wellington bombers and 3,000 Hurricane fighters were built during the second world war. For both those reasons, quite literally, we would not be here today without the legacy of Runnymede and Weybridge. Our heritage is second to none.

There are many parts of the constituency that I would celebrate today if I had more time, but what makes Runnymede and Weybridge great are the people and our warm and vibrant communities—from the famous, such as the Wentworth estate, where the PGA tour takes place, to the not-so-famous, such as the Englefield Green Social Hall, where the Christmas performance of the “Beauty and the Beast” pantomime was the highlight of my election campaign. The consequence of having such vibrant communities and flourishing Christmas fairs is that I have now developed a tombola addiction, but I do have several sets of bath salts and some odd fruit cordials and drinks at the back of my cupboard that I have won, which Members are welcome to take home to their families.

We are all here on borrowed time, by the grace of our constituents, so let me tell you a little of my mission here. It is equality of opportunity. It is that everyone, no matter who they are or where they come from, has great opportunities in life—the opportunity to learn, to have a meaningful and worthwhile job, to set up a business and to grow old in peace and security. I would not be here today without the great opportunities that I had in my life, such as going to a state grammar school in the west midlands. But words like “equality” and “opportunity” are often bandied around without context or meaning.

As a mental health doctor, I have worked in many different hospitals and seen people from all walks of life. I know what a lack of opportunity looks like. Sadly, I have seen people without hope—people who cannot aspire and achieve, hamstrung in life by bad schools, no jobs, shabby housing, poor mental health or addiction. When, working as a doctor, I have supported people get back into work or get a decent place to live, it has often been better than any medicine I could prescribe. It must be that the successes of those who dare to dream are only bounded by their industry and talents.

Turning to today’s debate, we have always taken the lead on the most pressing issues of our time. Today it is our environment and climate change. Sadly, air pollution levels are high in Runnymede and Weybridge, driven by the motorways that criss-cross the constituency and the flightpaths that we live under. This Bill will make strides to improve our health and wellbeing and secure our children’s future.

From my office in Parliament, I can now look back at St Thomas’s Hospital, and when I do I am reminded that things do not always go as we expect. For many people, things do not go to plan in life. We need a strong safety net of welfare and public services, such as our NHS, which I am proud to have worked in for over 10 years, and which my wife continues to work in. Our public services need effective management, leadership and funding, paid for by a flourishing economy and led by a strong Conservative Government. All this is why I am a Conservative and why I am here today.

Royal Assent

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020.

Environment Bill

Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

Debate resumed.

12:44

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who certainly has big shoes to fill. The way he talked about how his experiences in his previous professional life led him to want to make change in this place was particularly poignant. We may find that we could have a conversation about music at some point, although I maintain that I was never a goth. There is a local satirical magazine in Bristol that has nicknames for all the local politicians, and I am invariably referred to as “pint-sized goth MP Kerry and ‘the Banshees’ McCarthy”.

This Bill concerns the technical and mechanical arrangements for putting these measures into law. However, a real lack of vision surrounds not only this hefty piece of legislation but the Government’s general approach. I am increasingly concerned that we are not showing leadership in the run-up to COP26. We have not had a statement from the Government since the election or since the COP president was replaced by the Business Secretary, and there is so much more that could be done in showing global leadership on the climate and ecological emergencies.

On the Bill specifically, the four principal concerns raised on Second Reading last October, as well as by the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee during pre-legislative scrutiny, have not changed. There is still no substantive commitment to non-regression in environment law, and until that is included the Government’s verbal commitments on maintaining standards are, frankly, difficult to believe. The Secretary of State spoke at the National Farmers Union conference today, and he knows that the farming community is very much of that mind when it comes to the Agriculture Bill, but the concern spreads much wider among environmental groups as well.

The clause on environmental principles—clause 16 —needs to be strengthened. It is not good enough that Ministers must simply have only due regard to them. It is also a significant step backwards compared with the arrangement we had within the EU.

The lack of urgency on targets is deeply worrying. The interim targets are not legally binding. The long-term targets do not need to be set until 2022, and potentially cannot be enforced for almost two decades. We do have to have short-term milestones; otherwise, we will just see action delayed again and again, and there will be no mechanism for holding the Government to account. As has been mentioned, it is also quite worrying that the Secretary of State has the power to revoke or lower a target with very little scrutiny.

I would like to see much stronger action on land use in this country, particularly urgent action on natural climate solutions. There tends to be an awful lot of talk about planting trees, but that in itself is not enough to compensate for the damage that is being done to our environment. I was at a very interesting event with the all-party group on net zero yesterday, when I think it was said that natural climate solutions could account for 0.25 °C of trying to limit the rise in global warming to 1.5 °C or 2 °C.

We need to look at protecting and restoring our peatlands, salt marshes and other carbon sinks. This was mentioned in the Agriculture Public Bill Committee yesterday. Apparently, there are various strategies around, and it all seems quite piecemeal. My concern is how we hold the Government to account if there is a certain amount of provision in legislation, but also lots of other documents that are not legally binding and cannot necessarily be challenged in Parliament. In some ways, that could muddy the water in relation to what we are trying to achieve.

I will not go into detail about the Office for Environmental Protection, other than to say that I hope it is still coming to Bristol. It does need more independence and more power. It needs to be properly resourced, because there is no point in its having the power to conduct its own investigations unless it is actually given the resources to carry out those investigations properly. It must also be given the power then to impose fines. I hope the Government will consider this in Committee.

Alarmingly—this was mentioned in passing in an intervention—in the year we are set to host COP26 and there is also the international biodiversity conference in China, the Bill is completely silent on the UK’s global environment footprint. We cannot just try to put our own house in order when we are a global nation—we are trading, we are importing and exporting—and having a considerable impact often on countries that are contributing very little to climate change themselves.

We need a target to reduce our overseas impact, including specific action on deforestation. It is a sad reality that economic activity by the UK, whether via finance or imports, has played a significant role in the destruction of the world’s forests to produce food. Last year, Global Witness identified that UK-based financial institutions have been the single biggest source of international finance for six of the most harmful agribusiness companies involved in deforestation in Brazil, the Congo basin and Papua New Guinea, providing a staggering £5 billion in finance over the last six years. Meanwhile, UK imports of commodities such as beef, leather, soy, palm oil and timber have been shown by the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to take up an area of land—land associated with deforestation—more than half the size of the UK.

That is why I completely support the calls by the WWF and Global Witness to amend the Bill to include a mandatory due diligence obligation, which would require a business to identify and assess the nature of the actual and potential adverse impact of its activities on the environment and human rights, both domestically and internationally, as well as throughout its supply chains and investment chains. It would also require a business to take appropriate action to avoid, mitigate and remediate the negative impacts identified and assessed; to cease operations and investments where impacts cannot be adequately mitigated; and to report on implementation of the due diligence plan, including the actions taken and the effectiveness of those actions. I hope to serve on the Public Bill Committee, and if so, I will be seeking to put forward amendments that tackle this.

To conclude, it is not enough just to be planting trees in our own backyard if we are contributing to the deforestation of vast swathes of the Amazon abroad.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Saqib Bhatti to make his maiden speech.

15:25

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)]

I am going to start by congratulating all my hon. Friends and colleagues who have given their maiden speeches today and in recent weeks. They truly have been of the highest order. I give my maiden proudly representing the constituency of Meriden. We are all a product of our journeys, so I am grateful and privileged that I can stand here thanking those who have been part of mine: my friends, my other half, my family—thank you.

My predecessor, Dame Caroline Spelman, was a mightily impressive colleague and friend to many in the House. During her 22-year career, she held a number of important positions, such as party chairperson, several shadow Cabinet positions, Second Church Estates Commissioner and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She did all of these with distinction, while demonstrating an unrelenting dedication to her constituents—a dedication that I hope to emulate. I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating her son David, who last month rowed across the Atlantic with a friend as part of the Talisker challenge and broke the world record.

Meriden is the largest constituency by geographical size in the west midlands. We have beautiful countryside, booming local businesses and a vibrant community spirit. My constituency takes its name from the village of Meriden, known as Alspath in the Domesday Book. It originally made up part of Lady Godiva’s estate and, as many Members of this House will know, Lady Godiva rode through the streets of Coventry naked in protest against her husband’s tax rises. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a lot in common with Lady Godiva—[Laughter.] I do not know why they are all laughing: I love horses and, like Lady Godiva, I am a big advocate of low taxation. However, I am going to wait for the Budget this time, before I decide to what degree and how I protest any new taxes.

In the Domesday Book, Meriden was known as the true centre of England. That was until the early 2000s, when an over-zealous team at the Ordnance Survey decided that the centre of England was in fact in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), but since I am not a bitter man and I do not hold a grudge, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me tell you why Meriden is still the beating heart of this country.

I wanted to speak in the Environment Bill debate because my constituency has an excellent track record on the green agenda, and Solihull Borough Council—my council—has committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030. The environment will pervade every area of policy making for my generation and many future generations to come. Infrastructure projects such as the ones in my constituency bring with them air pollution, noise pollution and continuous threats to the green belt. I will work hard to represent my constituents, so that progress and developments never mean compromising on our quality of life. This is a tricky topic, but one from which I will never shy away.

Meriden is unique and picturesque. It has more than 300 listed buildings and is steeped in history. It contains idyllic villages such as Hampton in Arden, Knowle, Dorridge, Catherine-de-Barnes, and Balsall Common, to name just a few. They capture the true character of the great British countryside like nowhere else, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) earlier tried to tell the House. Meriden is home to Birmingham airport and the National Exhibition Centre. It has rail links to every part of the country, and will soon be home to a certain high-speed rail link and interchange station. It has a Jaguar Land Rover plant, the prestigious Blythe Valley business park, and Birmingham business park, which houses names such as Oracle, Arup, and Rolls-Royce, as well as new market disrupters such as Gymshark.

If one travels north in my constituency, however, there are communities in greater need of opportunity, such as Chelmsley Wood, Castle Bromwich, Smith’s Wood, Kingshurst, and Fordbridge, where I see hard-working and socially conscious people who have not experienced the benefits of economic progress. Recent decades have seen more investment in those areas, and new facilities bring new opportunities, but as far as I am concerned, until all members of our society feel the effects of economic success, our job as parliamentarians is not finished.

As a former businessman and president of one of the largest chambers of commerce in the country, I have always advocated for social progress through economic progress, and for the role that business plays as a force for good in society. I believe we must do all we can to support business to thrive, and we must allow entrepreneurs to take risks, create jobs, and drive society forward, as that is the only way we will address the injustice of inequality. The difference between life expectancy in Knowle in the south of my constituency, and Chelmsley Wood in the north, is 10 years. With higher crime levels and lower levels of employment, there is something inherently unfair about the disparity in the life prospects of two children born in the same constituency, a mere eight miles apart.

The primary reason why any of us enters politics is because we want to make the lives of the people we serve better. I am thinking of that young boy or girl who, right now, is working hard to get the grades to be the first in their family to get an apprenticeship or go to university. Perhaps they are on an athletics track, running an extra lap so that one day they can represent their country on the international stage and return triumphantly. I am thinking of that recruit to the emergency services or armed forces, who is willing to risk life and limb for this beautiful nation of ours, or of the immigrant who came to this country, leaving everything behind, in order to build a better life for themselves and their family.

People may ask what unites us in our love for our country, but that is simple: we dare to believe. We dare to believe in a country where our children will have the best opportunities in life, and where our pensioners can grow old and live with dignity. We dare to believe in a country that is open, inclusive and optimistic. There are those—a small few—who may try to create disunity among us, and we must remember that hope and opportunity will always defeat the ideologies of division and hate.

There is no “leave” or “remain”, Mr Deputy Speaker; there is only our great global Britain—the Britain that says it does not matter where somebody was born, where they come from, what they believe, who they love, or what anyone else says they are capable of achieving. Instead, as long as they share our values of respect, hard work, and they stand up for what is right, they can achieve anything. We live and serve in the best country in the world. Unwavering in our commitment to our values, we have remained faithful to our vision for a better world, and we have always stood tall and firm in the face of adversity.

We must now hold that vision more closely and dearly than ever before. As we embark on the final leg of our journey to new-found independence, it is now that we must remember our old friends and seek out new ones. It is now that we must speak up and act for those facing persecution and oppression across the world, and we must take seriously the threats to our environment and society. We must remember everything that we have in common, and everything that unites us. We must dare to believe.

15:32

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The speech by the hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) does him great credit, and I am sure he will have a long and illustrious career in this House. I will give him one piece of advice: however much taxes may rise, unlike Lady Godiva, could he please keep his clothes on in the Chamber?

This Bill has been introduced because of Brexit. There are a million reasons why people voted for Brexit. For some, it was because of a lack of affordable housing, because the UK was unable to make its own laws, or because Brexit would solve their concerns about low wages. Nobody, however, voted for Brexit because they wanted fewer environmental protections, yet I am sad to say that that is exactly what the Bill, as it stands, represents. That raises the question of how Britain wants to present itself on the world stage, in the year that we host COP to tackle the climate and ecological emergency.

Until the end of this year, 70% of the UK’s environmental protections will come from the union with Europe, which has provided increasingly high environmental standards for 45 years. The Bill represents the majority of the Government’s efforts to import those protections from Europe into UK law, and it replaces wide-ranging protections with four simple domestic targets. Indeed, there are four target areas—water, air, biodiversity and waste—with a minimum of one target required to be set in each. The media are reporting that the Treasury is pushing for a maximum of one target in each area outlined in the Bill, so it seems that we are moving from a whole network of protections to just four. That is a poor trade for our natural environment. I am sorry to say that it is an indication of how the Government interpret their greater environmental obligations after we leave the EU and make our way in the world. The direction we seem to be heading in is backwards.

To prevent that backsliding, the Government must include in the Bill a commitment to the non-regression of environmental standards. I expect that everyone across the House agrees that regression from environmental protections is poor and that standards should not be reneged upon, watered down or discarded. If we were to let that happen it would have real implications not just for UK wildlife, but our own constituents—the water they drink and the air they breathe. There is nothing more fundamental than keeping our constituents from harm. I therefore ask the Government to do what they have said they will do and ensure we have non-regression in the Bill.

Of the four areas set out in the Bill, only one has any details and that is air quality, which is incredibly important. I have one of the worst areas for air quality in the UK. If the Bill is to have any meaningful impact on the quality of our air, it should include a legally binding commitment to meet WHO levels on fine particulate matter pollution by 2030 at the very latest. Even that will come at the expense of many of my constituents’ lives. The Bills lacks coherence and fails to establish a link between the currently lacking target it sets out and the improvement plans the Government should be carrying out. Let us not forget that this is the Government who had to be taken to court three times over their lack of action on air quality. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) talked about trees and I would like to reinforce what he said about that.

Another area not covered in the Bill is beaches. Let us not forget that the UK was one of the slowest countries in the EU to clean up its beaches. We were still pumping raw sewage into the sea 20 years ago. Improvements to the quality of our natural water have come about as a result of the EU water framework and bathing water directives. How can we now, in the Bill’s 233 pages, not include any targets for beaches? If it is likely that we are just going to get one target, will it be for rivers, water-borne pollution, chemicals or ecological status? We do not know. How can we just have a single water target? We need to ensure that we transpose the protections we have in EU law into UK law.

I want to finish by talking about ministerial powers. In the previous Parliament, we talked a lot about Henry VIII powers. We seem to be returning to Tudor times once more. The Bill confers sweeping powers to enact huge sections of the Bill on the say-so of the Secretary of State. He is not in his place, but I know he is a keen environmentalist. He will spend the majority of the Committee stage—I hope to serve on the Public Bill Committee—looking at this area, but the Bill does not provide any targets or any information until 2022. How are we meant legally to enforce targets in that time period? It is not enough to say, “Trust me, I’m the Secretary of State”. He will say that appointments to the board of the new Office for Environmental Protection will be made by him, but they will be made without parliamentary oversight. It will be sending reports to him, rather than to us here in Parliament. We will have to rely on him.

What happens—we know political shifts happen very rapidly these days—if a future authoritarian Government finds themselves in power and they want to make sweeping changes to the level of environmental protection? The Bill affords them power over what the targets should be and who enforces them. I am sure that such a prospect makes us all nervous, including the Secretary of State. If multiple targets are set in each area, with amendments tabled and improvements made, and if links between targets and improvement plans are strengthened, the Bill could mark the beginning of a framework that provides real environmental protection. However, I must highlight this point to Members on both sides of the House. With its current powers and levels of discretion, the Bill could be used for a catastrophic reduction in protections, leading to poor air quality, polluted waterways, declining biodiversity, exposure to chemical pollution, and a dereliction of our green and pleasant land. It is entirely down to whoever happens to be Secretary of State on any given day to protect them. The Bill gives too much power to an already over-powerful Executive, and must be amended so that Parliament can have democratic oversight, and so that stringent environmental standards are set.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Maiden speech: I call Kate Griffiths.

15:39

[Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and to make my maiden speech in this pertinent debate, given the recent extreme weather that we have endured across the country. I will speak about the Bill and its importance a little later on, but I will first talk about the constituency that I love and have the privilege of representing in this place.

I have listened with great interest to many of the maiden speeches in recent weeks, and to the reasons each new Member has given as to why their area is so important to them and, indeed, our country. However, there is no doubt that it is my constituency and home town of Burton that has for generations provided the real driving force behind this nation’s success—beer. Although my constituency’s history and culture is as rich as the water that infuses the beer we produce, it cannot be denied that it is brewing that has truly put Burton on the map. It is the sulphate-rich hard water of the Trent, combined with the industrious spirit of Burton’s people, that has led to the town’s setting the standard for high-quality pale ale. That has led brewers worldwide to “Burtonise” their water, in an attempt to mimic our great local tradition.

This proud heritage reverberates through all areas of my constituency, including the sporting one. It has given the mighty Burton Albion football club their nickname “the Brewers”. Here I must declare an interest. Before entering this place, I was fortunate enough to work for the club, although I cannot take all the credit for their hard-earned football league status, which came in 2009 following a victorious season in the Conference.

I have always felt that the name of my constituency is incomplete, and I sincerely hope that in any forthcoming boundary reviews, consideration is given to renaming it Burton and Uttoxeter. Uttoxeter is a beautiful market town, and it is the proud home of the world-leading construction equipment manufacturer, JCB. The company’s yellow diggers are instantly recognisable the world over, and it was at JCB that the Prime Minister famously bulldozed through the Brexit wall last December, emphatically signifying his commitment to break the parliamentary deadlock and foreshadowing his success in dismantling the so-called red wall on election day.

I pay tribute to one of my most admirable predecessors, Sir Ivan Lawrence, whose notable parliamentary achievements include a private Member’s Bill that led to the creation of the national lottery. He also gave the longest parliamentary speech of the 20th century, at 4 hours 23 minutes, on the matter of water fluoridation. I will watch the Government’s legislative agenda with interest, and I am prepared to swoop in with a speech of 4 hours 24 minutes, should an increase in fluoridation be proposed.

Aside from the preservation of water quality, I know that this Government are committed to dealing with some of the most pressing issues that my constituents face today. I am pleased with the renewed focus on infrastructure. In my constituency, we desperately need the safety issues on the A38 to be addressed. My predecessor, Sir Ivan Lawrence, raised that matter in the House some 55 years ago, and it is still a critical issue for my constituents today. As we meet the Government’s agenda for increased house building, we must ensure that that is matched with investment in critical routes, such as the A50 in Uttoxeter. I pledge that in this House I will do all I can to bring about that investment and those much-needed improvements.

We must also deliver for our town centres, which have faced increasing difficulty due to new technology and changing shopping habits. I have very fond memories of the bustling Burton High Street of my childhood. While the face of town centres will undoubtedly be different in this age of the internet, we must do all we can to ensure that they have a thriving future at the heart of our communities.

My constituents are hard-working, resilient people. Throughout our history, we have suffered and overcome adversity. In 1255—I am so sorry, I am going to have to have a quick drink.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend like me to intervene?

[Kate Griffiths]

I thank my right hon. Friend, but no. I do apologise.

In 1255 and 1322, Burton was all but destroyed by fire, and we suffered catastrophic flooding in 1514, 1771, 1795 and 1852. That collective spirit of resilience, however, forged through overcoming tragedy, has not made the events of recent weeks due to the impact of Storms Ciara and Dennis any easier to bear. That is why this Bill is so important and why I chose to make my maiden speech in this debate. Our changing climate brings with it the ever more present threat of flooding, and although the Government have already provided billions of pounds of funding to defend against it, with this Bill we will do more.

Not only does the Bill set out the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth; it is another example of the Government’s steadfast commitment to delivering for people in my constituency and across the country. During the election, I had hundreds of conversations with people across Burton and Uttoxeter, but there is one conversation, in particular, that has always stayed with me. One resident told me that politics for her was about trust and faith. She told me that I had her vote because she trusted me, my party and the Prime Minister to deliver what she voted for back in 2016 and to invest in our NHS, our schools and our infrastructure, and that she had faith in our country to thrive outside the European Union.

My constituent’s trust was not misplaced. The Prime Minister has already delivered on that central solemn promise to get Brexit done. She is right, too, to have faith in our country, as I know that under this Government’s stewardship it will thrive in the years ahead. It is my job and the job of everyone on the Government Benches to continue rewarding the trust and faith that has been placed in us by delivering. I will spend every minute of my time in this House working tirelessly to do so for all the people I have the honour to represent.

15:47

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on such an important issue. It is right that we legislate to protect the environment, our water and the air we breathe. It is also vital that we preserve the biodiversity of our countryside and woodlands and conserve our areas of outstanding natural beauty, such as the Peak district in my constituency, for the enjoyment of everyone.

I am pleased that, after pressure on the Government, the Bill now includes a reference to climate change enforcement. If the rising sea levels, fires and floods do not constitute a threat to our environment, I am not sure what does. The fires in Australia have affected 1.25 billion animals and, according to WWF estimates, have harmed 30% of the koala population. There is abundant scientific research to demonstrate that global heating will result in the extinction of thousands of plants and animal species, and the UK is not immune. It is nonsense to say that we are in favour of biodiversity but not lift a finger to stop the carbon emissions that have led to the destruction of ecosystems and fragile ecologies, making the 10% increase in biodiversity almost impossible to deliver. It is not meaningful to talk about protecting the environment without also talking about how we end the climate catastrophe that is currently wreaking havoc across the globe.

The only way to secure our environment and defend the diversity of our wildlife in the long term is to halt rising temperatures and reach zero emissions by the 2030s. That means fundamentally reshaping our economy and infrastructure by handing power to the people with the greatest interest in stopping climate catastrophe—not the bankers, as we heard earlier, or big businesses, but working people.

Despite the changes to the Bill, the truth is that it falls well short of the protections we need to secure our natural environment for the years to come. The EFRA Committee charged with scrutinising the proposals was right to call them a missed opportunity. This was an opportunity to enshrine environmental protections in all aspects of our public institutions. Instead, the proposals only oblige Ministers to act and only with mealy-mouthed “'due regard to” the principles in the Bill. It was an opportunity to make Britain a beacon of environmental standards for the whole world to follow. Instead, there is no provision in the Bill to prevent our own standards from slipping and falling below those of the European Union; in fact, the environmental principles outlined in it represent a significant downgrading of the principles behind our existing environmental protections. It was an opportunity to create a world-leading, independent institution for environmental auditing. Instead, the Government are proposing to establish an organisation with nowhere near the level of independence that is required to hold Ministers and public bodies to account.

At a time when No. 10 can sack a Chancellor for refusing to fire his staff, are we really to have any confidence that the Government will not seek to interfere in the decisions made by the proposed Office for Environmental Protection? I wonder whether the intention is to create a Cassandra-esque body so that those in power can wrongly ignore the truth that it speaks. To tackle climate change and protect our environment, we need democratic and independent institutions that have the power to enforce action on climate chaos in a meaningful way.

We can either face up to the reality of the climate crisis and transform our institutions, our economy and our infrastructure, or consign our planet and our wildlife to environmental catastrophe. That is the decision we face. It is a historic opportunity and a historic responsibility. I am sorry to say that it is an opportunity that the Bill squanders and a responsibility that it shirks.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Marco Longhi to make his maiden speech.

15:51

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Let me start by thanking you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to present my maiden speech today, and to thank your staff—and, indeed, all staff on the estate—for keeping us safe and looking after us so well and with such professionalism. I should like you to convey my more profound thanks, if that is possible, to Mr Speaker for the way in which he has signalled that he will carry out his office as Speaker of the House, in complete contrast to his predecessor. The conventions and integrity that he is restoring in such an unassuming way are having a much greater impact in restoring faith in our democracy than any commentators may be giving him credit for, which is why I want to do so today.

It is the convention to comment on one’s predecessor in a maiden speech. I shall do so, but not for that reason: I will because I want to. I am certain than many in this place will want to recognise Ian Austin for his integrity, and for the brave way in which he decided to stand up against antisemitism. There is not a person in my constituency to whom I have spoken who does not speak well of Ian, even when they disagreed with his politics. So I want to thank him for his efforts as a local MP, and for the example that he has set for many of us, on both sides of the House, in standing up to prejudice and hatred. I suspect that some of my colleagues on this side of the House—myself included—may wish to thank him for other reasons too.

I say with a degree of both pride and humility that I am the first ever Conservative Member of Parliament for Dudley North, the first ever Member called Marco, and the Member holding a larger majority than any of my predecessors in this seat. For that, I thank the people of Dudley, who, like the people in the rest of the country, decided to tell the House—yet again, at the umpteenth time of asking—what they wanted us to do.

The Dudley North constituency is made up of the town of Sedgley, the suburban areas of Upper Gornal, Lower Gornal and Gornal Wood, Woodsetton, and other conurbations around Dudley town itself. It has several attractions of national significance, including the Black Country Living Museum, Dudley Castle and Dudley Zoo.

Dudley has been a market town since the 13th century, and its fortunes over the centuries have ebbed and flowed with the economic cycles of the heavy industry that its coal-rich mines supported. This also means that it has suffered much since the decline of the traditional industries, which is why a focus on skills and future jobs is crucial if the economic prosperity of the area and the wellbeing of Dudley people are to be secured for the coming decades.

Dudley is also credited with being the birthplace of the industrial revolution, with the advent of smelting iron ore using coal instead of charcoal, which is manufactured by burning trees and therefore much rarer and more costly to obtain. Abraham Darby introduced this revolutionary method, which meant that iron and steel could be made in much larger quantities and more efficiently and cheaply. He effectively kick-started the industrial revolution, so Dudley’s heritage and legacy are second to none—notwithstanding what other people in this House might say! However, I will say that competing with Magna Carta and perhaps alienating a doctor might not be my smartest move. Abraham Darby was born in Woodsetton in 1678 and is reported to have lived at Wren’s Nest, which is now a site of special scientific interest—I had to practise that—and, since 1956, one of only two national nature reserves assigned on geology alone because of the variety and abundance of fossils found on the site.

However, although the new industrial revolution brought wealth, it also resulted in the area being named the most unhealthy place in the country in the mid-19th century, because of the dreadful working and living conditions. That led to the installation of clean water supplies and sewerage systems. Dudley had the highest mortality rate in the country. In the 21st century we are faced with the fourth industrial revolution, characterised by a range of new advancements in the digital and biological worlds, but with a different impact on human wellbeing.

Improving health and wellbeing and seeking to tackle mental ill health are some of the areas on which I wish to focus during my time in this House, for the benefit of everyone at home and in their workplaces. If we tackle the issue of poor mental health at its core and in its infancy, we can prevent crisis moments and the devastating consequences that they can have. That it is also why having an environment that we can all enjoy, which supports us in our own wellbeing and that we can leave as a positive legacy to our children and grandchildren, is so important. Mother Nature has been talking to us for some time, and it is time we did more than simply listen. It is time to take action as well, which is why the Bill is so welcome.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if you ever come to Dudley, the capital of the Black Country, you will be warmly welcomed, because that is the nature of Dudley people. You will also feel a sense of expectation—a feeling that change is about to happen, a feeling of optimism—and this is another reason why I am so privileged to represent the town and its people. In the near future, we will be seeing the demolition of the infamous Cavendish House in the town centre to make way for many new homes, the metro extension and I hope—subject to consent—a very light rail system.

Like many high streets around the country, Dudley’s has suffered much. Nobody has a silver bullet to fix that, but increasing footfall by attracting more people feels like part of the solution. If attracting more people into the town centre is part of the solution, and if the focus on skills for future jobs is key, I would like to see our plans for a university campus on the edge of Dudley town centre finally being delivered. I am pleased that the Prime Minister agrees with me on that. These game-changing plans were drawn up before my arrival, and some have been spoken about for many years. Now is the time to turn words into action and to deliver for Dudley. My pledge to all Dudley people is that I will fight every step of the way to make things happen and bring about the change that they want. It is Dudley’s turn now.

15:59

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi). Having so recently given my own maiden speech, it feels a bit cheeky to be congratulating another Member on their maiden speech, but I enjoyed listening to him talk about the warmth of the people he represents, the history of his area and the challenges it faces. With so many maiden speeches today, he faced quite a challenge to compete with the birthplace of the Magna Carta and, indeed, the passionate description of her constituency given by the hon. Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths). When I gave my maiden speech, I spoke about an important brewery in my constituency, so I feel some affinity towards what I value in my constituency and the breweries of Burton. I congratulate everyone on their maiden speeches today.

Since becoming an MP, the Environment Bill is the piece of legislation that I have been contacted about by more of my constituents than any other. The constituents who have been in touch recognise the urgency to act and the opportunity that this Bill offers to make a real difference. The Government could take decisive action through the Bill to protect the environment. However, as currently drafted, the Bill misses this vital chance to act at a crucial moment.

The Bill proposes to replace the EU’s comprehensive framework of environmental protections with long-term targets over which the Secretary of State has nearly complete discretion to change at any time. Alongside that, the new Office for Environmental Protection that the Bill establishes is not, as we have heard many times today, fully independent from Government, and lacks the strong enforcement powers it would need for us to be certain of its effectiveness. It is hard to disagree with Greenpeace UK’s assessment that Ministers have just given themselves a licence to fail.

We have the opportunity to widen the Bill’s ambition and strengthen its approach, and it is vital that we do so to ensure that this chance to set us on the right course for many years to come is not squandered. I urge the Government to listen to calls from my constituents and many others to strengthen the Bill—to ensure that it strengthens and certainly does not lower existing levels of environmental protection in future laws and policies; that future Governments are legally compelled to take action to meet long-term targets for the recovery of nature and the environment; and that the new Office for Environmental Protection is truly independent and can hold the Government and public bodies to account over environmental commitments.

Alongside those general principles, my constituents have also contacted me about specific areas of the Bill that need strengthening, such as provisions on deforestation, oceans and air quality. I urge Ministers to listen to their voices and to those of environmental groups on such crucial issues.

First, my constituents want specific targets to end deforestation in the production of commodities, including food, that the UK imports. Mass deforestation is accelerating climate change and is a leading cause of wildlife extinction. We must take responsibility for the impact of our actions around the world, yet the Bill does not currently address the UK’s role in harming nature overseas.

Secondly, my constituents want the Bill to do more to protect the oceans, including through legally binding targets on plastic pollution and through measures to reduce how much plastic is produced and consumed. We are still waiting for the Government to take the promised action on that front, and the Bill makes no firm commitment to prevent the exporting of waste which can lead to plastic littering our seas around the world.

Thirdly, my constituents want a firm approach on tackling poor air quality. It affects everyone, but it has been felt acutely in recent years by many people living in Ealing North and across London. Poor air quality stunts the development of children’s lungs, which everyone will agree is a truly awful legacy to leave the next generation. Of the 650 constituencies, in 2018 Ealing North had the 41st-worst concentration level of the harmful pollutant PM_2.5. Particulate matter affects everyone and means that people living with heart or circulatory conditions are at a higher risk of a heart attack or stroke. It is time for the Government to step up and help my constituents and people across the country.

Decisive action can make a difference, as the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan is showing here in London. The Mayor has been taking a lead on cleaning up the capital’s air, including by introducing the ultra low emission zone. In 2016, air at the Hanger Lane gyratory monitoring station, which is just outside my constituency in Ealing Central and Acton, exceeded the hourly legal limit for nitrogen dioxide for a total of 45 hours. Last year, that had fallen to just two hours—a drop of 95%. I give that example because it shows that change is possible. The Government have an opportunity to make it clear that clean air is a priority. They can give the Mayor and councils, including mine in Ealing, the resources they need to go further in tackling poor air quality, and they can use this Bill to commit to introducing higher standards nationwide. As we have already heard, the current legal air quality limits for England are less stringent than the World Health Organisation’s guidelines. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to adopt World Health Organisation limits and to make a real difference to the quality of our air.

We know urgent action is needed to respond to our climate and environmental emergency. The Environment Bill provides an opportunity to do so, yet the Government appear to be doing all they can to resist solid protections and to avoid introducing standards that are equivalent to, or better than, those in EU regulations. That should set alarm bells ringing on the Government’s approach to post-Brexit regulation generally, and it is an immediate and urgent concern that means we risk missing the moment to set high environmental standards as we face the coming decade.

On behalf of my constituents who have contacted me, of all those around the world who are affected by our actions and of the future generations who will be impacted by the decisions we take, I urge the Government to seize this chance to show true global leadership on protecting our environment.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Jane Stevenson to make her maiden speech.

16:05

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)]

I congratulate all my colleagues who have made such excellent maiden speeches this afternoon. As a proud Wulfrunian, I am deeply honoured to come to this place to represent my home city of Wolverhampton—the city in the Black Country.

I must begin by paying tribute to another local woman, my predecessor in Wolverhampton North East, Emma Reynolds. Emma was elected in 2010 and held several shadow ministerial roles. Widely respected as a moderate and principled member of her party, she spoke with balance and reason. I know her qualities will be greatly missed on the Labour Benches.

Wolverhampton North East stretches across the north of the city between two 20th-century housing developments, each built on the site of a medieval farm. At Ashmore Park, in the east, you can still see the site of a medieval moat; and in Pendeford, in the west, a slightly later landmark is a beautiful 17th-century dovecote that gives part of Pendeford its name.

I am sorry that I do not have longer to speak of our rich and long history, but I want to mention one of the most important battles in British history. In 910 AD, the forces of Mercia and Wessex united to roundly defeat a large Danish army. So thorough was the defeat that it was the last time the Danes sent a great invading force to our island.

There are two places in Wolverhampton that lay claim to the location and, therefore, the name of that great battle. My election to this place puts me in a rather awkward position: one of the places, Tettenhall, is in the ward in Wolverhampton South West that I serve as a city councillor. The other, Wednesfield, is a village in my constituency of Wolverhampton North East. I have learned quite quickly that politics is a game of numbers, so with sincere apologies to the fine people of Tettenhall—and one of them is my own mother—I shall now refer to it as the battle of Wednesfield. [Laughter.] Ah, you have met her. I am in so much trouble when I go home.

The city of Wolverhampton grew over the centuries, first on the wool trade, and then on small industry. Metalwork, Japanning and key and lock-making fuelled our prosperity on the edge of the Black Country. My ancestors, the Mattox family, had a small key-making factory in Wednesfield in the 19th century that started in a garden shed.

That spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation is alive today, and I am proud to be in a party that wants to support more people to start and run their own businesses. Unemployment in my constituency is too high, and I want to see support for start-ups, as well as better training, apprenticeships and education opportunities.

With our central location, excellent transport links, reasonable property prices and wonderful people, we are an excellent place to come to start or conduct your business. Our i54 business park is already home to large firms like Jaguar Land Rover, Moog and Collins Aerospace. We are a welcoming and friendly place, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you would be very welcome to visit us any time. Queen Victoria was still a princess when she first visited Wolverhampton. She did describe us as a “large and dirty town,” but she was delighted to be welcomed with great friendliness and pleasure.

We are proud of both our industrial heritage and our warm welcome. As with much of the Black Country, this industrial heritage has left us with very little green space, and that space now needs protecting. The northern boundary of my constituency borders leafy South Staffordshire, but that green belt land is now under threat, in order to fulfil housing numbers in Greater Birmingham and Black Country housing area plan. As a region, we need to urgently rethink this strategy. Our West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street, has shown that brownfield sites can be successfully made viable for housing. A “brownfield first” policy would protect the green spaces to the north of my constituency, near Linthouse Lane in Wednesfield, and in Bushbury by the wonderfully named Cat and Kittens Lane.

I and many Wulfrunians care deeply about our environment, and I support the measures in this Bill to ensure that we have cleaner air, to put the environment at the centre of policy decisions, and not only to deliver the clean Brexit most of my constituency voted for but to ensure it is also a green Brexit. This will help my constituents live longer, healthier lives and protect our city for future generations.

Today I want to pay tribute to all those people in Wolverhampton North East who volunteer, to make their environment and their communities better. I have met so many wonderful Wulfrunians who give up their time to help others, whether litter picking around Bushbury, going out street watching in Low Hill or Fallings Park, volunteering at our much loved New Cross Hospital or getting involved in their church, gurdwara or community group. Volunteers make our city better, and I want to thank them for their service to Wolverhampton.

In an environment debate, it seems appropriate to mention Wednesfield in Bloom, a community gardening project that brings together the whole community—the St Thomas’ church, the Guru Nanak gurdwara, schools and local businesses; everyone comes together to plant the most beautiful displays across Wednesfield and Ashmore Park. They have already won several awards and will be competing in the national finals of Britain in Bloom this year, and I wish them every success. In an age when we have an epidemic of loneliness among people of all ages, I can only hope that the example of Wolverhampton’s volunteers inspires more people to come out and get involved.

I could not let this speech end without mentioning my great love, not only for the city of Wolverhampton but for the greatest football team on earth—Wolverhampton Wanderers. Football runs deep in our veins, and although our city’s official motto is “Out of darkness cometh light”, our unofficial motto is “Wim Wolves, ay we”. I would love to give credit for this quote to our fantastic manager, Nuno Espirito Santo, but it was actually Rudyard Kipling who said that

“the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.”

When we work together, we achieve the most. I look forward to working with people from all communities, from all over Wolverhampton North East, during my time as a Member of Parliament. I proudly take my place on these Benches to serve my city, and I assure my constituents that Wolverhampton will always be my first priority.

16:13

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) on her excellent maiden speech. I was pleased to hear that she is, or was, a local councillor and so, like me, will appreciate the importance of local democracy and local government. In this place, we must ensure that the voices of local communities are being heard and that our local government is resourced properly.

I also welcome the fact that one of the first pieces of major legislation that we are discussing in this new Parliament is on the environment, as it is one of the most urgent issues of our times and has to be a central focus of all our future decision making. But it is worth reminding the House that this Bill is necessary only as a result of our leaving the European Union, which was, until now, the best protector of our environmental standards. Although the Government have claimed that Brexit will mean enhanced—

[Bim Afolami]

On her point about the European Union being the best protector of our environmental standards, does the hon. Lady not accept that this country’s environmental standards and, indeed, our food standards are some of the highest in the world, not just in the European Union?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I absolutely agree. The European Union has been a team effort to which Britain has made a large contribution. It is a shame that we can no longer be leaders in the European Union and direct its future.

Although the Government have claimed that Brexit will mean enhanced environmental standards for the UK, the Bill does not really deliver much on those promises. We are facing a climate emergency, a fact that the Government acknowledge but are less willing to act on. We need to tackle the climate emergency immediately, with legally binding targets included in the Bill.

I am pleased to see that the Office for Environmental Protection has had climate changed added to its remit, but the OEP needs independence and teeth to hold the Government to account. Unless and until it can independently impose hefty fines, the OEP cannot match the EU as an enforcer of environmental regulation.

I wish to focus my remarks on part 3 of the Bill, which concerns waste and resources, and on the amendment that I will table in Committee. I will also mention the Government’s commitments on the deposit return scheme. Unfortunately, I will probably not get a place on the Bill Committee, so I will depend on cross-party support for my amendment. I believe it will strengthen the Bill and make it better, and I very much hope that the Bill Committee will consider it.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to establishing a deposit return scheme—a policy that the Lib Dems have been pushing for many years. However, there are several questions about how the scheme will work in practice. It is important that the scheme is both independent from Government and not for profit. The Department should work to ensure that the scheme is as wide as possible, incorporating cans and all types of plastic and glass bottles. I am concerned that as Scotland is introducing its own deposit return scheme two years earlier, DEFRA’s scheme for England and Wales might not be compatible. It should be. I am looking forward to hearing more from the Government on the detailed proposals. People who come from different backgrounds—I was born in Germany, where deposit return schemes have always operated and never been stopped—know that it is a particular challenge to rebuild the infrastructure needed for a proper scheme. Nevertheless, it is the right direction of travel and I very much look forward to the debate and hope that I can make a contribution.

I shall be tabling an amendment on waste traceability that will require waste collection and management authorities to publish the end destination of all municipal waste products. I am deeply concerned about the transparency of waste management in this country. I was a local councillor for three years and the cabinet member for the environment, and my responsibilities included bin collections and waste disposal, so I know quite a lot about the subject, and I know the difficulties that councils have in making recycling really work and making sure that people engage in recycling schemes. For that reason, it is important that local councils disclose not just where they send their waste after they have collected it but the end destination, so that nobody can say, “Well, you have sold it on to a management company somewhere in the midlands and we do not know where it goes then.” We would instead know what that company did with the waste and that it did not sell it on to some country abroad, so that it might eventually end up in the oceans.

We would also know whether we were sending our waste to waste incineration facilities. Although people talk about energy from waste, I remind the House that it is not a net zero solution. Incinerating plastic is no better than burning fossil fuels. If we are looking for a net zero solution for this country, incineration from waste is not it. We need to look at that urgently. My amendment would make sure that those who diligently recycled could be confident that their waste was recycled and not shipped abroad or burned in incinerators. Incinerators need a certain calorific value in order to burn. For example, burning wet food waste is best done by adding plastics. It is perfectly possible that waste companies are burning recycled plastic waste from local authorities.

It is crucial to understand that energy from waste plants is not a net zero solution. Burning plastics, as I have just said, is no better than burning fossil fuels. Plastic should be recycled where possible, and energy from waste facilities create a counter-incentive to recycling. A small change in the law to require waste to be traced to its end destination will make the system more transparent and waste authorities more accountable. In this way, everyone will know where their waste is going when they put it in the recycling bin. We owe it to our residents to give them that transparency.

Although this Bill brings forward some important changes to waste and recycling, there is still not enough focus on waste prevention and how the waste industry will contribute to a net zero Britain.

16:20

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

Our natural environment is of growing importance and concern, both in the United Kingdom and around the world, so, it is of great importance that we get this Environment Bill right.

Conservative Governments have had huge successes in introducing measures such as the charge for single-use plastic bags, resulting in a 90% decrease in plastic bag usage in the United Kingdom, but there is still much work to be done. I encourage the Minister to consider banning plastic milk cartons as part of our Conservative mission to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than that in which we inherited it.

By introducing a framework for our independent environmental standards after leaving the European Union, specifically on areas such as air quality, water, biodiversity, resource efficiency and waste reduction, the United Kingdom is exercising its sovereignty and world-leading ambition. Setting our own laws is a significant opportunity not only to maintain high standards, but to exceed them.

I strongly welcome the fact that the Government have set long-term environmental objectives and principles. Long-term outlooks are a crucial element in tackling the effects of climate change. However, more immediate measures are required in the Bill. For example, we need positive measures to reduce further single-use plastics through deposit return schemes and other community engagement projects, and I warmly welcome those aspects.

My constituency of West Dorset is a prime example of excellent environmental stewardship, with its vast stretches of countryside and Jurassic coast—that is clear to see. Our land has been nurtured and maintained by generations of farmers, and those farmers have played a vital role throughout history in taking care of the countryside. They nurture wildlife and habitats, a duty that should not go unnoticed. Unfortunately, however, that vital work often goes unnoticed, and I pay tribute to the thousands of farmers for their environmental stewardship across the country and for dedicating their lives to doing so. I am especially keen to seek assurance and clarification from the Minister that the crucial role of farmers is recognised and that they are granted the freedom to thrive and continue their vital work.

Surprisingly for some, a key concern of my constituents in West Dorset is air quality. Chideock, a small village in my constituency between Bridport and Lyme Regis, is especially subject to air pollution, as the A35 runs through it. Traffic congestion means that the air is polluted with the harmful exhaust gases of vehicles. The World Health Organisation recommends a maximum pollution limit of 10 micrograms per cubic metre of air, but in 2017 West Dorset District Council measured a reading of 61.8 micrograms per cubic metre of air. My constituents in the rural village of Chideock are subject to such high levels of air pollution. The British Lung Foundation has confirmed the damaging effect of high levels of exhaust pollutant, which must be a much higher priority, in my opinion. I hope that the targets set by the Government will recognise the impact of exhaust pollutants in villages such as Chideock, and ensure the safety of all residents from harmful gases that cause a direct and immediate health risk.

I welcome the environmental direction in which the Government are heading, but I am keen to encourage the Minister to be more robust with target setting so that our important environmental standards will not just continue at our normal high standards, but that our standards going forward will lead the world.

16:25

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). He focused on air quality and that is very much what I want to focus on today. I agree with everything he said about that. I also agree with him that we should leave the environment in a better condition than we found it, but I fear that, in its current form, the Environment Bill will not deliver that mandate, which I share. It certainly will not deliver the bigger mandate of delivering zero carbon for 2050. As the Minister will know, the latest projections show that we will reach the 1.5° increase by 2030, not 2040, so we really do need to up our game. The Bill is possibly capable of delivering environmental protection, as opposed to climate change mitigation, regarding air, chemicals, plastics and our oceans.

The problem with the Bill, at least as it is drafted at the moment, is that it does not have the teeth to deliver enforceable, known targets to ensure that we deliver those higher standards. As we leave the EU, the real risk is that because we do not have dynamic alignment, we will fall behind the escalating standards in the EU and possibly even behind the current standards. On air quality, the Minister will know that we consistently fail to meet the EU air quality standards and that is why the Government have been taken to court on several occasions by ClientEarth and rightly fined. We need a system that can duplicate that, but that system does not exist.

[Chris Grayling]

It baffles me that Opposition Members think that this country is incapable of setting high standards itself without having an international body to do it for us. If we all, collectively, across the House, believe in high environmental standards, why cannot we look after our own interests, rather than have somebody else do it for us?

[Geraint Davies]

That was very much an own goal by the former Transport Minister, who cancelled the electrification of the line to Swansea and knows that the UK has consistently failed to meet standards. The empirical evidence shows that we have not and cannot do it with this Government, because we have been dragged into court, kicking and screaming, for failing those standards. That is why we have the Bill, which waters down the standards, does not provide an independent agency and does not provide an opportunity for fines to be paid for failure to deliver World Health Organisation standards. In my view, such fines should be paid to the health service to treat people for the harm and to local authorities to actually reduce air pollution.

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

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, but does he agree that what is really worrying is the lack of ambition from the Government? We can only save the planet by international co-operation if we stop their friends who invest in companies that are exploiting the rainforest. We need to do that in a co-ordinated way across the planet, but the Bill lacks imagination and energy.

[Geraint Davies]

Precisely. COP26 is an opportunity for the United Kingdom to show that we will act collectively, take leadership and bring the world together, but the example we are setting is one where we have 62,000 people dying prematurely from air pollution at a cost of £20 billion. Air pollution causes heart failure and lung disease, and possibly lower IQ in children. Unborn babies have PM2.5 microparticles in their blood stream. That is why we want the World Health Organisation standards mentioned by the hon. Member for West Dorset for 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030, with a staging post of 12 by 2025, in the Bill and enforced through fines. Otherwise, it simply will not happen.

We know what the manufacturers will do, with their weasel words; we know about the Volkswagen scandal. The latest scandal is the fact that diesel filters themselves store up particulates, crush them into more harmful microparticulates and spew them out every 300 miles, causing much worse pollution and public health problems. That is not actually measured in the emissions testing regime, because the manufacturers have been behind the door, lobbying away. We cannot trust them, and we want to bring forward the year when new diesel and fossil fuel cars become illegal to 2030. As has been mentioned, we need a fiscal strategy to deliver that.

The other change I really want to push for is the inclusion of indoor air pollution in the Bill. No one in their right mind would believe that we could have an Environment Bill that is just about the outdoor environment, when 90% of our time and 95% of our children’s time is spent indoors. What is happening to those children indoors? I recommend that Members read report on indoor air quality published on 28 January by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which shows that there is an abundance of harmful chemicals indoors, including in products used for cleaning, construction materials and volatile organic compounds. These chemicals come in the form of formaldehydes, cosmetics, candles, cooking products and all sorts of stuff, and they have a cocktail impact, causing inflammatory respiratory problems. We are all locked in small flats with double glazing, which makes the effect worse, and that is also the case in schools and hospitals. The Bill should cover indoor environments—minimally schools and hospitals—to protect our children, but it simply does not.

Fire retardants are a specific problem. I understand that the average house in Britain now contains 45 kg of fire retardants, including in sofa and mattress foams. We have much more of these materials than the EU or the US. Why? Because we require a flame test, rather than just a smoulder test. When fires happen, people die from the toxicity of fumes given off by the fire retardants. This toxicity is worse than in concentration camps in the second world war because of the combination of hydrogen cyanide—the chemical that was used in concentration camps, in Zyklon B—and carbon monoxide, which makes it 35 times worse. When there is a fire, those so-called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons burn off, firefighters cannot see through the smoke, and people basically choke and die within a few breaths. It is outrageous that that should be allowed. New Zealand has removed those chemicals, and has shown that doing so does not result in more deaths from fires.

Through this Bill, we need to continue with the regulation concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, or REACH. In a nutshell, REACH means that manufacturers that produce a chemical are required to show that that chemical is safe. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency has to prove that a manufacturer’s chemical is hazardous, which is why asbestos is used in brake pads in the United States. Once we go into a trade deal, the big problem with this Bill is that it leaves the door open for Donald Trump and his mates to water down our environmental standards—we have all heard about chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, but this also applies to chemicals—so that they can sell all sorts of stuff that will be a risk to our public health. We need to tighten up this legislation, have a precautionary principle and ensure that we deliver on REACH.

Members will know that plastics cause the deaths of 1 million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals a year, and that there will be as much plastic as fish in the sea by 2050. We need a fiscal strategy to address that; we need to tax plastics. The last Chancellor but one said that there was going to be a plastics tax. Where is it? Are the Government calling for it? Let’s have it.

On trade, we need to watch out for investor-state dispute settlements. Companies will come along and agree a trade system, and if we start passing new environmental laws, they will sue us under the investor-state dispute settlement system. It is important that we have our legislation in place at this point—before we agree those trade deals—rather than doing so after the trade deals, otherwise we will face all sorts of sanctions. I agree with the Chair of the DEFRA Committee on the integrated approach that needs to be taken with the three Bills to combat flooding through land use management and so on. Particularly as I am from Swansea, I am concerned about tourism in the economy, and want to ensure that the blue flag beach registration is kept up so that people have confidence that when they go bathing everything is clean.

Our environment is not just a namby-pamby thing about saying, “Let’s look after the environment.” It is obviously for our children and our children’s children, but it is also for our economy. We want to be able to boast, “We set the standards and the markets follow. People want to come here because we have a glorious enhanced environment.” In the current state of play, this Bill will not deliver the goods. I very much hope that Ministers will be open to the amendments that my right hon. Friends and I will want to put in to make it better and fit for purpose.

16:35

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). I might have a slightly more optimistic view of this place’s ability to press for the highest standards, but he makes a very important point about indoor air quality. I am sure that the Minister will have listened to that particularly carefully. I have a particular interest in the issue of carbon monoxide that the hon. Gentleman talked about.

This is an important debate to participate in in its own right, but it is all the more pleasurable because we have had so many maiden speeches as well. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti), for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) and for Burton (Kate Griffiths). I hope I can apologise to my hon. Friend for trying to intervene on her, but I thought it might have been a timely intervention. I have to give special congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) because I stood for election in Wolverhampton North East in 2001, and she had a lot more success than I did. As a fellow Black Country girl and the granddaughter of a metal room worker, it was really heartening to hear her passion for the Black Country and its future. I wish her every success in this place. I should say that I also remember her mother, who was a councillor at the time when I stood for election.

This Bill takes this country’s approach to the environment and the protection of our environment to a whole new level. It makes legal principles that some of us have supported for many, many years, including the “polluter pays” principle. Its legally binding targets to improve the environment, and annual reports through environmental improvement plans, mean that we are set on a positive track for the future. The Office for Environmental Protection is a new industry watchdog.

The specific issues that are dealt with in the Bill have been raised with me by my constituents for many years. I am sure that my local Chineham Girl Guides and Brownies will be very pleased to see that the deposit return scheme is back on the table. Many of my other residents who have lobbied me on plastic bag charging, and extending it, will be pleased to see measures on that. The many hundreds of people who have, over the years, written to me about the importance of sustainable forms of packaging will be delighted to see the measures in this Bill. So I give a massive thanks to the Minister for all the work that she, in particular, has done on these measures.

I would like to focus on just two issues within the Bill, one of which has not been raised so far. It follows on from the points made by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) with regard to trees. Schedule 15 is about combating illegal deforestation. It is all well and good to go around planting trees, as many of us do, and encouraging people in our constituencies to do that, but if others come along and fell those trees unlawfully and nothing is done about it, or things are done but the actions that are undertaken are ineffective, then this has to be taken seriously. I really commend the Government for picking up on this issue, because in my constituency we experienced one of the largest unlawful tree fellings that the Forestry Commission had seen in many, many years when more than 500 trees were felled in Dixon Road just outside Sherfield Park. Despite the Forestry Commission taking great measures to insist on a restocking order and that being enforced through the courts, the practical fact is that few of those 500 trees have been reinstated.

I therefore welcome the measures in the Bill that will allow courts to make restocking orders after an individual has been convicted for failing to comply with an enforcement order. I even more heartily welcome the fact that the fine for felling without a licence is increased significantly to an unlimited level 5 fine. Restocking orders are really important, and they should not be flouted in the way that they have been. I hope that these measures are as effective as the Government have set out.

An application for planning consent on a piece of land that has been subject to unlawful tree felling cannot take into account the fact that there has been a failure to comply with a restocking order. I hope the Minister will look at local authorities being able to take unlawful tree felling and a lack of compliance into account when considering applications.

The second issue that I want to raise, as other Members have, is the legally binding target for fine particulate matter, which I welcome wholeheartedly. Fine particulate matter has the most significant impact on human health, and the Government’s approach has been commended by the WHO as an example for the rest of the world to follow. The importance of action by national Government is clear, but local government needs to act as well if we are to achieve the improvements in air quality that are so important. One in five of us will be diagnosed with a respiratory illness or condition at some point in our life, and the Government are acting on that.

Will the Government look closely at the proposals put forward by various organisations on further strengthening those air pollution targets? Could the Minister confirm that health experts will play a significant role in setting new air quality targets?

It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. These air pollution measures are such an important part of the Bill and are to be commended, along with the other measures. I wish the Bill well at every stage in this House and the other place.

16:40

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It was just last year that Parliament declared a climate emergency—a significant move that recognises the importance of this issue for our future and the future of our planet. We are in a climate and ecological emergency but, sadly, the Bill does not do nearly enough to help. It replaces a flawed but comprehensive European Union environmental framework with non-binding long-term targets that can be changed by the Secretary of State at any time, at his or her discretion. We need concrete, legally binding targets if the Bill is to have the impact that it must have for our future.

I want to talk about biodiversity gain. The idea is welcome, but the level of gain set out in the Bill must be much more ambitious. We do not need a levelling down of biodiversity gain. Some authorities are already going beyond this, or seeking to do so, within the current frame- work. We need a much higher limit. Some organisations have suggested that a 20% net gain would be more in line with need and that this should be open to review, in case future evidence demonstrates the need for an increased level. It should be a minimum, not a cap.

One issue that has been drawn to my attention by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others, and on which I had the chance to ask a question last week, is implementation of the biodiversity gain proposals. Concerns about the proposals include new burdens on councils, further pressures on the capacity of local authority planning departments and a lack of specialist ecological expertise to deliver the plans. If we are to have biodiversity gain, as we should, all new burdens on local authorities must be properly assessed and fully funded. Without that funding or resource, this is just a piece of paper that cannot be enforced. It is vital in this area that we ensure that local authorities have the resources they need—in staff and in finance—to make sure that this is properly implemented, as well as looking at the capacity and skills needed.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Ealing North (James Murray), neither of whom is in their place at the moment, have spoken very fully and eloquently about the impact of deforestation on our environment. It is not my intention to repeat that, but this is an issue that many of my constituents have contacted me about. We should not underestimate the need for the issue to be addressed and I hope the Government will do that. Accelerating climate change is the leading driver of wildlife extinction due to habitat loss.

In my constituency of Blaydon, trees play a hugely important part in our local natural environment. Many of my constituents are very concerned about making sure that we are not only looking after our existing tree cover, but increasing our tree cover to deliver environmental benefits. I am pleased to say that, at the turn of the year, I took part in a community tree planting event in my constituency. It was good to see so many people—so many families—out and joining the plantation. I know that Gateshead Council has plans to increase the tree cover in our constituency and in the Gateshead Council area.

The new Bill does include a legal duty to consult before felling street trees and stronger powers for the Forestry Commission, which is welcome. Again, however, the issue of resources raises its head: there must be resources to carry out that responsibility. We do not want loopholes that will leave valued trees vulnerable as a result of proposed tree felling. As has been said, it is important that we increase tree cover to ensure that we can take advantage of the environmental gain, but it is also important that we consider a tree strategy. This Bill does not move forward on the call for a national tree strategy for England to be required by law. I hope the Government will consider that again.

I want to touch briefly on plastic pollution. All hon. Members will know how, when they visit a school or see the Brownies locally, the children are very keen on ensuring that we clean up our oceans and do not have plastic pollution. People will be disappointed to see that the Bill does not go further in this area. One of the key things we need to look at is getting an all-in deposit return scheme that deals with recycling at least some of the plastic in our environment.

The last thing I want to talk about is the Office for Environmental Protection. I echo calls from both sides of the House about ensuring that this role has true independence from Government and has real powers to be able to tackle the issues. It is an absolutely vital role in ensuring that we deal effectively with protecting and improving our environment. Again, I hope the Government will think very hard about ensuring that its powers are strengthened.

I ask Ministers to look at all these issues and at the amendments that will undoubtedly be put forward, to look to strengthen some of these measures and to ensure that local authorities and other organisations have the resources to implement effectively the powers we are giving them.

16:49

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). I do not agree with what she said about the need for the European Union to set our regulations, but I do agree with a lot of what she said about deforestation and biodiversity, which indicates commonality across the House on the need to tackle these issues effectively.

I am not a glass-half-empty person, and I think that we in this country have made good progress in recent years. Our rivers are massively cleaner than they were, although discharges still damage our wildlife. We are planting trees around the country—I have a fantastic project in my constituency, the Centenary Woodland, which is being planted by the Woodland Trust—but not enough is done to ensure that new housing developments are built in a sustainable way alongside protected habitats, and that housing does not destroy wildlife in our country.

We are doing much more than we previously did to tackle unnecessary waste, but the hon. Lady is right to say that we still have too much plastic pollution, and we do not sufficiently reuse potentially valuable materials. As a nation we have made good progress in cutting carbon emissions, but we still have an impact around the world. There is deforestation, and one thing I would like, which consumers can deliver, is a significant reduction in the amount of palm oil that this country uses. We know the environmental implications of too many palm oil plantations around the world, and this country should seek to set an example on that issue.

My remarks will focus on two things. First I will speak about biodiversity, but I will also stress the need for a smart approach towards these matters. Our constituents still have priorities. They may think that this issue is a priority, but it is not the only one, and we must approach these matters in a way that delivers a cleaner, better environment, and enables us to meet people’s other priorities.

It cannot be right that our generation has seen such a loss of biodiversity here and around the world, and we must seek to address that. Many of us will remember the dawn chorus from when we were children. There were birds all over the place, but today there are far fewer. I hold the role of parliamentary species champion for the hedgehog, and to my mind, the dramatic decline in hedgehog numbers shames this country. Not just in this country but around the world too many species are in danger because of man’s behaviour. One thing that I hope will result from the dreadful outbreak of coronavirus in China is a proper crackdown in Asia on the illegal wildlife trade, which does so much damage to so many species, including endangered species.

I welcome measures in the Bill that require biodiversity gain in new developments. That is an important step forward, and when meeting our undoubted housing needs, we must not simply build over wildlife habitats without seeking to make provision for the species that are affected. It is right to have a proper nature recovery network, and to give local authorities and other organisations the duty and power to restore and create better natural habitats. That is the only way to reverse the decline in species such as the hedgehog, or those birds that have disappeared from so many parts of the country. It is not the only solution, but it will be important.

We must also introduce measures on water quality in our rivers. We have made progress, but not enough, and the Bill includes some provisions on that, particularly regarding extraction. Over-extraction to meet human and agricultural needs has a serious impact on biodiversity in our river valleys, which the Bill rightly seeks to address. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) was right to speak about the importance of measures in the Bill to tackle illegal deforestation, which are welcome and overdue. These issues are not just for the Government or regulatory bodies, because our whole society needs to act. I welcome the gradual steps now being taken by some developers to open up the access routes through new developments that species such as hedgehogs need. Without such provision, those species will continue to decline.

We need a smarter approach to managing our impact on the environment, but we live in a democratic society, and people also have other expectations. If we demand that people give up major aspects of their lives in the name of the environment, or because of environmental pressures, they simply will not do it. People expect us to improve their roads, and ensure that they can buy or rent a home and take a holiday, and we must work out the best way to deliver our environmental objectives, alongside meeting the rest of those goals. The new Office for Environmental Protection must use its powers wisely and effectively. We must do everything we can. If there is a solution we must grasp it, but if no solution avoids damaging other parts of our society, we must think carefully about how we approach those issues.

One example of where we need a smarter approach is in preparing for net zero. I hear, week by week and day by day, people and companies saying that they will be net zero by a particular date. That is absolutely to be desired, but we know that some of the mechanisms to get them there, particularly offsetting schemes, are not always what they are made out to be. We will therefore need a much more carefully thought through, higher quality approach to nature recovery here and around the world. It is not just about planting trees, although hon. Members of all parties have talked about the importance of tree planting. I support the planting of trees. We can play a big part internationally, through our development aid budget, to encourage and support other countries to reforest areas that have been allowed to become arid and deserted. We can do more in this country, too. We have projects already, but there is more we can do here. It is not just about tree planting, of course. Wetland areas can absorb carbon and create more habitats for birds. We need a mixed approach to biodiversity.

Offsetting projects have to be genuine and beneficial. It is important that in this country the Office for Environmental Protection ensures that projects within the UK are genuine in their impact. Internationally, I want us to refocus part of our aid budget to support genuine projects around the world that restore biodiversity and habitats to create the opportunity to bring back wildlife populations and capture carbon at the same time. As one of the great donors to the developing world, we can play a real leadership role in doing that.

Restoring our habitats and our natural environment is, to me, an urgent priority. Legislation can only take us so far. The whole of our society needs to work on delivering it, but the Bill can help us to take a major step in the right direction.

16:56

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

We are facing one of the greatest tests in our history: extreme weather, droughts, wildfires, flooding yet again devastating communities across our country, rising sea levels, polluted rivers and toxic air.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Air pollution across the west midlands affects some 2.8 million people and our young people are most at risk of dangerous levels of nitrogen dioxide. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the hard work of the Labour council in Birmingham, who are introducing a clean air zone to try to tackle air pollution, and in commending my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), the Labour candidate for Mayor of Birmingham, who wants Birmingham to become the first carbon-neutral region in the country?

[Anna McMorrin]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s local council and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill on the fantastic work they are doing. I am really proud that my own local authority, Cardiff Council, is doing groundbreaking work through a clean air plan to tackle air pollution levels. Cardiff Council has just been awarded £21 million from the Labour Welsh Government to invest in practical measures, such as retrofitting, taxi migration and transport initiatives. This is really groundbreaking stuff, which is absolutely needed.

Climate change is no longer a theory. It is a reality beating at our door. The recent floods across our country have shown it is not just something that happens to other people in far-flung places. It is happening right here. We have a moral, social and ethical obligation to the generations who will follow us to meet the environmental challenges of today and leave behind a healthier, more sustainable environment for tomorrow. This long awaited Environment Bill is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to strengthen our environmental standards at home, modernise waste and recycling strategies, and show global leadership at a time when it is so sorely needed. At COP26, we can show the world what we are doing.

There are some welcome measures in the Bill, but I am afraid it fails to show the promised gold standard stipulated by the Environment Secretary’s predecessor. I am not suggesting that any of this is easy. It is not easy to change the way that we do things to meet the climate challenge, but I am suggesting that it is absolutely imperative that we take urgent, radical action to build a sustainable environment and economy for the long term, to safeguard our planet for future generations—offering also opportunities for people, our communities and our businesses. That need not be an either/or scenario. I do not know for how many years I have been making speeches about either the environment or the economy. It need not be either/or; it can be both.

Today I want to focus on one of the Bill’s key elements: waste and resource efficiency and phasing out unsustainable packaging. The UK has been using and wasting resources at unsustainable levels; we are far behind the recycling rates of many of our European neighbours. There is a rising imperative for Government, business and consumers to think and act radically when it comes to plastics and packaging, waste and recycling.

In the previous Parliament, I presented my Packaging (Extended Producer Responsibility) Bill. UK Government figures had been shown to underestimate drastically how much plastic packaging waste Britain generates. A study by Eunomia, the waste experts, estimates that just 31% of waste is currently recycled. Where does that waste go? Much is exported and shipped overseas, and dumped into our precious oceans, washed up on the pristine shores of the Arctic and Antarctic. While the Bill sets targets on waste reduction and resource efficiency, there is more of a focus on end-of-life solutions, rather than tackling types of packaging, and the use and reuse of plastic packaging. That continues to place a disproportionate burden of waste collection and costs on local authorities.

The coalition of waste industry experts and local authorities that I set up around my Bill all believe that the Bill before us does not adequately deal with the reform of waste as it should. We desperately need radical reform of the system across the country. Producers need to take responsibility, from the packaging they produce to the clean-up at the end of the life cycle. This is the Government’s opportunity to be ambitious—to show the UK to be a world leader. It would be a great shame if they did not take this opportunity. Such reform is not in the Bill as it stands.

The current system has failed to get to grips with export waste. I am not confident that the Bill in any way toughens our stance on the restrictions on exporting waste. Even the most well intentioned of producers who ship plastic waste overseas to be recycled and treated correctly, lose control and ultimately lose sight of whether that waste was appropriately disposed of. The Secretary of State, in his opening remarks, said that he had toughened up that area, but I cannot see that in the Bill: we have gone from “prohibit” and “restrict” to providing for regulation. I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister: what does that mean? What does that regulation look like? How does it adequately meet the needs? It does not, as I see it.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady be supporting or opposing the Bill in the Lobby this evening?

[Anna McMorrin]

I am absolutely opposed to a lot of things in the Bill, because it does not speak to what our industry—our producers—need. So I will be thinking very carefully and taking that decision at the end of the debate.

We must build on our recycling industry here in the UK. The answer to that problem cannot simply be that the Government will tackle the problem by causing more materials to be sent to landfill or the incinerator. Although end-of-life solutions are important, the ultimate objective must be to decrease the volume of single-use plastics, improve design and recyclability and see large-scale investment and infrastructure capacity here in the UK, and not ship things off overseas. We must address the core reason why so much plastic is shipped overseas: 356 million tonnes of plastic waste in 2018 alone.

In England, councils, restricted financially, have been less able to invest in recycling facilities, so much of the growth in the waste disposal sector has been achieved by exporting waste. In many cases, a failed austerity agenda has created that growing dependence on export markets. I am fortunate that in Wales the Welsh Government have been ambitious and introduced those hard recycling targets and invested in recycling, but for this to work we will need fundamental reform across the whole UK. I want this UK Government to take innovative steps to make radical change.

Finally, I want to touch briefly on the Office for Environmental Protection. Where is its independence in holding Governments to account and what consequences will there be when the Government fail to meet targets? It will be a toothless regulator with fewer powers than the European Commission. How can we hope to meet the challenge of the climate emergency with such a weak regulator? The Bill lacks ambition. It lacks legally binding targets and fails at every level. If we want people to take Government and Parliament seriously, we need to wake up and to toughen up the Bill.

17:05

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin). I endorse much of what she said about the horror that plastic presents to the world and the nonsense of exporting it. She might be interested to know that one of my sad failures as Secretary of State was failing to persuade our coalition partners to introduce a price incentive for a genuinely biodegradable plastic bag. Our charge, which came in shortly after I left but which I legislated for, has reduced the number of bags from 8 billion to 1.1 billion, according to the House of Commons Library, but the ideal is to develop a biodegradable plastic that does not cause this horror in the seas and all the terrible issues she raised.

We have heard many very good maiden speeches and I think there are more to come, so I will speak briefly. I see all this enthusiasm in the Chamber, all this youth, all these excited people wanting to take action as Members of Parliament and benefit their constituents, yet a pillar of the Bill, which I strongly support, is the creation of a quango. When I was Secretary of State, my four key priorities were: to grow the rural economy; improve the environment, not just protect it—which is built into the Bill; and save the country from animal disease and plant disease. The Bill is the basis on which to deliver that. It is not all in there—it is partly an enabling Bill—but I strongly support its clearly stated aims.

The only aspect I would really query is that we do not need another quango. We already have Natural England and the Environment Agency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), when he took the Bill through in its early incarnation, said that the staff of the OEP would only number 60 to 120. That dwarfs what we already have in Natural England and the Environment Agency. What we want are strong Ministers. I am delighted by the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) as a Minister and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who was my junior Minister, as Secretary of State. They are knowledgeable, competent Ministers bringing forward policies that will benefit our farming and marine industries and the environment, both terrestrial and marine.

What we want is a strong mechanism by which Members can question Ministers, ensure that whatever they decide is put into practice and pull them up if it is not. What we do not need is another quango. A quango is not the answer. I have direct experience of that. We had the most terrible floods in Somerset when I was at DEFRA. Why was that? It was because of a very misguided policy. Why was it misguided? It was because the Environment Agency was led by a model quangocrat. Baroness Young of Old Scone had spent seven years as chief executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, she had been vice-chairman of the BBC for two years, and she was chief executive of the Environment Agency for eight years. I am sure she would score many points among all those speakers on the Opposition Benches—of course, she was also a Labour Whip.

The policy of Baroness Young in the Somerset levels was to put a limpet mine on every pumping station, and when it came to categories, she wanted policy option 6 for the levels, which was to increase flooding. The result was an environmental catastrophe, costing, according to some estimates, more than £100 million. The water died—the water went stagnant—and all aquatic life disappeared. I went down and talked to some experts on the levels who really understood the local environment, and they said that they had never seen so many wild birds disappear until that year.

What we want is local management. North Shropshire looks as it does thanks to generations of private farmers and private landlords taking huge pride in what they do. What we are doing now on public goods in the Agriculture Bill—and there are more measures in this Bill—is giving people the chance to improve their local environment. I should like the Minister to look at the benefits of nature improvement areas, built around catchments, where we could pool the resources from the landowners’ payments for public goods, from public grants and from other moneys, possibly local, for the purpose of long-term targets. We could concentrate on local species which need building up again. That would deliver real environmental outcomes.

Creating at national level a quango with 60 to 120 busy- bodies who are, for some reason, independent of this House is not the way. We have had enough: we have had 40 years of the European Union telling us what to do, and doing it badly. Following directives designed for polluted European rivers, not our own—that is not the way. The answer is to write laws in this House, and regulations in this House, and set targets in this House, and then control them in this House. That is what we were elected to do. Creating a parody of the European Commission—which is what the OEP is—is emphatically not the answer.

I am looking at the clock, but I will very briefly mention a couple of other issues. I mentioned catchment areas earlier. I should like the Minister to look at the issue of abstraction, because we have to balance the need to grow food and provide adequate water with the need to keep food production going. Food production is vital, and it is still the primary function of the countryside. I should also like the Minister to look at the balance between the precautionary principle and the innovation principle. In the European Union there is an insane hostility towards modern technologies, which has caused real environmental damage. What we should be doing is growing more food on less land, and freeing up land for recreation and planting. We have heard a lot of talk about trees, all of which I entirely endorse, especially in view of the floods. We should be growing more trees in the upper parts of the catchment areas. That is the balance: we will only do that with modern technologies.

Lastly, I want to touch on the subject of endangered species, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I am very proud to be wearing the tie of the Red Squirrel Survival Trust. We now have a wonderful opportunity to legislate for the species in this country which really are endangered. We do not have a problem with crested newts—although they have caused terrible problems for our building industry—but we do have a problem with red squirrels and certain crayfish, and those are what we should be targeting.

The Bill presents us with a great opportunity, and I support it, but will the Minister please make sure that it is Members of Parliament in the driving seat?

17:13

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow such a passionate speech from the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson).

It will probably not surprise Members to learn that I shall be focusing my comments on part 5 of the Bill, largely because extreme weather is starting to pose an almost existential crisis to us in parts of Calderdale. The water levels that we saw in 2015, and again earlier this month, presented an immediate threat to life, and a more long-term challenge to the viability of communities alongside the river and the canal.

An ongoing challenge for us in flood-affected communities throughout the north, in particular, is that the legislation and regulation that underpin the role of water companies are heavily weighted towards mitigating drought risk. The climate change adaptation work reflected in both the 25-year environment plan and the Bill, while recognising flood risk, does not provide the same level of seriousness in legislation relating to the risks of both flooding and drought, and I should like to see a rebalancing of those challenges.

In July last year I presented a ten-minute rule Bill, the Reservoirs (Flood Risk) Bill, which—in a nutshell—sought to give the Environment Agency additional powers to require water companies to manage reservoirs to mitigate flood risk. The Bill followed years of conversations between the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water and Calderdale Council about the role of the six Yorkshire Water reservoirs in the upper catchment in the Calder Valley. In the winter of 2017-18, Yorkshire Water and the Environment Agency started a trial to manage the Hebden Water reservoirs down to 90% of their usual top storage level, with the aim of assessing the potential of utilising the reservoirs as a more long-term flood risk management option. Maintaining the reservoirs at 90% instead of the usual percentage created an extra 10% capacity to hold more water in the upper catchment during periods of heavy rainfall. Although the reservoirs were placed under nothing like the pressure during the trial period that they experienced during Boxing day 2015’s Storm Eva or more recently Storms Ciara and Dennis, the report was able to conclude:

“The lower reservoir levels did provide a significant impact on peak flows in Hebden Water for largest events observed during this period”.

The report was clear that the scheme had a positive impact on flood mitigation, and that a managed and collaborative approach would be complementary to ongoing flood protection work in the area. This approach is not just happening in Calderdale; similar conversations are happening right across the country, including at Thirlmere reservoir in Cumbria, at reservoirs in the upper Don Valley and at Watergrove reservoir in Rochdale.

The Environment Bill recognises that climate change and extreme weather will place additional pressures on water availability, and although it legislates for a requirement on water companies to work regionally to publish joint proposals to mitigate drought risk, it does not seem to place the same expectations on water companies to mitigate flood risk. Drought risk and flood risk seem to be perpetually at odds with each other throughout legislation, although both are expected to occur with increased frequency. So while I very much welcome a more regional approach, I would like to see a rebalancing of both those risks, alongside the investment in infrastructure that would give whole regions the flexibility to move water with ease and to manage the risk, making us more resilient to too much water as well as not enough.

In relation to the role of reservoirs, I will be looking to table amendments to part 5 of the Bill that would set out the transfer of powers to the Environment Agency and the framework in which such arrangements between the EA and water companies, in consultation with local authorities and communities, would work together to put localised plans in place for managing down pre-designated reservoir levels during periods of heightened risk.

As we know, this is just one piece of the enormous jigsaw that needs to come together if we are to bring the ongoing risks that we face in Calderdale under control. Given the vast scale of the moorland in the upper catchment, natural flood management schemes will be instrumental if we are to hold and slow water before it reaches homes and businesses down the valley. Last summer, I visited Dove Stone nature reserve in High Peak with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, where a comprehensive peatland restoration project is under way. We were planting sphagnum moss, which not only helps to manage flood risk by locking in water but promotes biodiversity, prevents wildfires and stores carbon.

Slow the Flow in Calderdale promotes natural flood management, and with a group of volunteers with an impressive collective skillset, it has been working with the National Trust, the Environment Agency and Calderdale Council since 2016 to use the natural environment to build leaky dams, stuff gullies and promote sustainable drainage and natural attenuation schemes. This work disrupts the flow of water as it makes its way down the valley, forcing it to spread out and slow down, and holds as much water up in the crags for as long as possible.

The really impressive thing about Slow the Flow is its determination to measure its outcomes, its desire to take an evidence-based approach to what it does and to crunch the numbers to demonstrate the real value of its work. Its work on attenuation ponds, which are designed to hold water in the event of heavy rainfall, suggests that if the 43 attenuation ponds identified as possible sites by Calderdale Council were delivered at a cost of £600,000 for 29,000 metres cubed of water storage—bear with me—this would equate to £21 per cubic metre of storage, compared with the £1,270 per cubic metre cost of the storage delivered by the hard flood defences in Mytholmroyd. The truth is that we need both, but we can see how cost-effective natural flood management is. It is 61 times more cost-effective per cubic metre of water storage.

I therefore very much welcome the local nature recovery strategy in the Bill, building on the notion of natural capital and acknowledging the very real, tangible benefits for people and communities if we can store and slow water in the upper catchment. However, I would like to see the Bill include hard and ambitious targets for recovering moorland and peatlands in particular, and not only for flood alleviation purposes; nature-based solutions will play a critical role in mitigating climate change. Peatland currently covers 12% of the UK’s total land and contains more carbon than the forests of the UK, France and Germany combined. However, it is currently in poor condition. If we look after and manage our peatlands, we can continue to lock in that carbon and absorb more, but if degradation continues we risk not only missing that opportunity but releasing the carbon already stored.

I will briefly turn to the issue of Cobra meetings, because I have been at the deep end of flood crises in Calderdale twice during my time in office. While we cannot legislate for Cobra meetings as part of this process, I have just seen the Secretary of State’s comments to the “Ministers Reflect” series last year. When asked whether Cobra meetings make a difference, he replied:

“Yes, they do, because Cobra is designed to try give everybody a kind of proverbial kick up the backside and get things moving.”

Can I ask for that approach once again in relation to the damage that we have sustained in Calderdale?

17:20

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who told us about the situation that her constituents are facing. It has also been a pleasure to listen to the maiden speeches, and I observe that today must be “west midlands day”, because I have heard many excellent speeches from new colleagues from the region. I welcome the Bill and its protections, which will improve air and water quality, restore habitats, create the Office for Environmental Protection, and introduce measures to deal with the impact of plastic waste, on which I will focus.

As somebody who spent 30 years in the packaging industry and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the packaging manufacturing industry, I recognise public concerns about litter and where plastic waste ends up. I heard about that on the doorstep during the general election, because litter in our communities has an impact on local environments and the plastic waste finding its way into the oceans has an impact on the global environment. Both are harmful, but both represent the waste of a valuable resource. I have heard many Members today talk about the harm and damage caused by packaging ending up in the wrong place, but I want to take a moment to consider the role of packaging, because we sometimes forget what it is for.

Packaging enables the safe transfer of goods, particularly of food items, ensuring that they are received by the customer in peak condition. The second important role of packaging is not only to provide customers with convenience when picking up their daily food needs, but to give them information about what the product contains. That is of particular importance for food, given concerns about food allergies, nutritional content and sell-by dates, but instructions for use are important in respect of other items. However, that information is absent when people fill their own containers, for which there is a trend in retail.

The final role of packaging is to prevent food waste. Recent innovations, such as resealable packs for cheese and meat, are important in enabling households to get the most out of their food budgets and ensuring that purchased food is consumed. We must not forget that the disposal of food waste is a problem because it creates gases. There is a case for suggesting that the harmful gases given off by food waste cause more environmental harm than an inert plastic product bobbing about in the ocean. I am not suggesting that that is desirable, but we need to consider the relative harms.

If we accept that there is a role for packaging, we need to consider the steps to minimise its impact. The Bill encourages a reduction in the amount of packaging and refers to recycling. There has always been an incentive for manufacturers to use the least amount of material to do the job that the packaging is being asked to do, and the industry has undergone a process called lightweighting over many years. For example, starting in 2007, Coca-Cola worked with WRAP to reduce the weight of the 500 ml bottle from 26 grams to 24 grams, saving 8% of raw material and reducing the need for 1,400 tonnes of PET a year.

A large part of the Bill is about improving recycling in several ways. First, it extends producer responsibilities by increasing obligations on packaging manufacturers. The industry accepts that it needs to do more and has transformed its approach since the days when I worked in the sector, when there was little regard for what happened once the product had been used.

Consistency in local authority domestic waste collection is also important. People are confused by what goes where, and variation leads to confusion. That needs to be addressed, and I support the intention to simplify labelling on packaging so that what can and cannot be recycled, and which bin to put things in, becomes clearer to consumers. There also needs to be consistency in the use of terms. Why say that something is recyclable if the facilities do not exist to recycle it?

Part 3 addresses deposit return schemes. There are details to consider, but almost all producers in the industry accept DRS. Coca-Cola has an ambition to ensure that all its packaging is recovered so that more is recycled and none ends up as waste or litter, and in early 2017 it confirmed its support for a well-designed DRS.

A DRS must consider a number of items. It must have clear objectives, and it must increase the quality and quantity of the material collected. Quality is about making sure that there is less contamination, and I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson)—biodegradable plastic is not helpful, because it is a contaminant in the waste stream.

Secondly, on increasing quantity, there is no point incurring the costs of a DRS—reverse vending machines cost up to £15,000 each—if it does not increase the amount of material recycled. There is real concern about displacement and the fact that people who currently put bottles in their domestic household waste stream will take them to the supermarket to get their deposit back, which will not increase the amount that is recycled.

We need to consider the number of return points and whether there will be one at all sales points. Will cafés and restaurants be included? Will the scheme provide an exemption for small retailers that lack the space to install a reverse vending machine? There are serious questions for the Minister about who will pay for it. Given the lower volumes from smaller retailers, how will we make certain that it is cost-neutral for them? The Minister needs to sort out what happens to unredeemed deposits. Not every bottle deposited will be redeemed, so where will those bottles go? Who will manage it?

Finally, we need to ensure consistency with Scotland. I did not hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) say that it would make much more sense and be better for consumers, retailers and beverage producers if we had a UK-wide system. Britvic, which produces soft drinks in my constituency, says that it will otherwise need two separate stock units, one for Scotland and one for England and Wales, which does not make sense.

17:27

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and to hear him speaking so passionately about plastics and so comprehensively about recycling.

I will speak again about air pollution. According to the Environmental Defence Fund, air pollution is a significant burden on the health of UK residents. Long-term exposure to air pollution causes between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths a year, not to mention the cost to the public purse, the NHS and social care.

Tanya Steele of the World Wide Fund for Nature said:

“We are the first generation to know we are destroying our planet and the last one that can do anything about it.”

The Government need to take those words seriously for all parts of our country. I am a London MP, and London has the highest concentration of air pollution. The Mayor of London is committed to a green new deal and will spend to make that happen. He has shown that, with sufficient powers and resources, London can meet the World Health Organisation guidelines for air pollution by 2030. The Government must change their mind and commit to the WHO guidelines in the Bill. They must spend on that, and they will be judged on it in their post-Brexit Budget next month.

The Government fall short in other critical areas. The responsibility for planning is vague, with limited parliamentary oversight. There is inadequate recognition of the role that all public bodies must play in reducing air pollution. Lewisham Council declared a climate emergency in 2019 and proposed a target to be carbon neutral by 2030. The cost of delivering that is £1.6 billion. Taking action will create many opportunities in the area to improve health, create jobs, and provide other environmental benefits and significant social benefits, but if that is to be done the Government need to provide local authorities with the resources they need to take action. Otherwise, this is only a fantasy, not a reality. A failure to do that will cost lives and expose our society to a range of unknown costs. We need to value people’s lives—we need to value everybody’s life—and deal seriously with our climate crisis. There is a clear link between action on climate crises and air quality, waste, recycling, biodiversity and protecting our oceans.

I have recently received letters from pupils at the brilliant Brindishe Manor School in my constituency. This time, there were more than 40 letters about the toxic levels of air pollution and other significant climate crisis issues that have come to my attention. I have young children, as do many other MPs and staff here. We do not want our children to be affected by toxic chemicals or to suffer. There is a long journey of recovery for us as a nation that involves composting; planting more trees; walking and cycling more; reducing plastic; disposing of mattresses correctly; preventing the stripping of our oceans; preventing habitats from being under threat; removing all diesel cars; preventing car idling; having fewer cars on the roads; replacing cars with electric cars, at an affordable cost; providing firefighters with the knowledge and means to put out electrical fires; recycling; reducing flights; and reducing flight paths over concentrated areas. The list goes on and on. We need clean air for everyone; it is our responsibility to protect our citizens, society, country and planet.

The children wrote to me about the death of nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah, whose death has been linked to air pollution. They rightly demand more from me, and, on their behalf, I demand more from the Government. Given that they have again chosen not to commit to World Health Organisation recommended guidelines on air pollution in this Bill, what do they have to say to my constituents, to worried parents and to children fearing for their future? Let me end with this: the planet takes care of us and it is our responsibility to take care of it.

17:32

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow some excellent maiden speeches. The themes of this debate are clear, with a general acceptance that this is a good Bill. Some like it a bit more than others, but in general it is seen as a good Bill. Some Opposition Members seem to want the EU or certain other non-Westminster bodies to have more of a say, whereas some Conservative Members want them to have less of a say, but I think the balance has been struck reasonably well by the Government and I commend Ministers for that. This is a landmark piece of legislation, and not just for this country, as we see if we compare it with what is in place in other countries. It is important for us in this House to look sometimes to see what other countries are doing. What we are doing here is admired, not just in this country, but outside it. We should commend the Government for being so forthright. That does not mean we cannot improve the Bill and improve what we do, but let us call a spade a spade and say where we have done a good job—this Bill is a good Bill.

The OEP has rightly attracted a lot of attention because it is one of the most significant things established by the Bill. We will find out in the coming weeks, months and years how the OEP develops and interacts with this House, DEFRA Ministers and devolved Administrations, and how that all works. However, it strikes me that we have almost set up a sort of environmental National Audit Office. That is how the OEP could end up developing—[Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding on the Bench, so I hope I am right about that and that she will address it in her remarks. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, I know that, if there is anything like the professionalism that we see in the National Audit Office, we will be very well served.

We all need to be a bit more realistic. We need to wake up because the Bill is actually more significant than we realise. The enabling powers in the Bill give us the foundation to start to deal with the huge changes that are coming across our economy, society, Government and Parliament as a result of the action taken to combat climate change. Earlier in the debate, I intervened on the shadow Secretary of State to talk about the target of net zero by 2050. Yes, some people want it to be net zero by 2040 or 2030, and I understand that, but until we can get a handle on what we need to do to get there by 2050—which may seem like a long way away, but it is only 30 years, and in policy terms that is not a huge amount of time—we need to get our arms around this subject. We need to realise the number of levers we have to pull to get there by 2050. The Bill will allow us to do that.

Let me give a couple of examples. We all know that we cannot solve climate change in this country alone. It is an international effort. To accompany this Bill, the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill—a whole framework of how to look at the environment—the Government need, in the run-up to COP26, to set out an ambitious international strategy that includes not only spending from our aid budget, as the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), mentioned, but diplomacy and high-level Government commitment around the world. Frankly, if we cannot convince other countries to take the sort of action that we are taking, none of these problems will get anywhere near to being solved.

Another word I wish to mention is incentives. Let us not forget the power of incentives and, indeed, subsidies. The Bill gives us the framework within which we can remember the positive impact that incentives can have. Look at what we have done on wind and solar power over the past 10 or 15 years; there will be other areas in which we can use incentives. Let us use the Bill as a springboard, in the run-up to COP26, so that we can use more incentives and subsidies in the right areas to make the technological changes that we need and help our economy. The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) talked about the economy of the environment; the economy needs to flourish in order for the environment to flourish—they are intertwined—and using incentives in the right way can help us to do that.

Another word I wish to mention is honesty: a lot of this is going to cost this country a lot of money. Let us be straight about that. It will cost public sector money and private sector money, and not all of that money will be in this country. We are going to need international inward investment in the technology, in the ways we do things and in research and development, so that we can develop the technology, whether it be carbon capture and storage, battery technology or whatever, so that we have a chance of achieving the target. We all need to be a lot more honest with ourselves and, indeed, our constituents that this is going to cost a lot of money. Let us now start to have the bigger conversation about how we pay for it. I suspect that those on the Government Benches may want to do things differently from those on the Opposition Benches, but we have to agree that we have to do it. Let us have that bigger conversation; the Bill gives us a framework and basis on which to do that.

I wish to conclude with two local issues that illustrate a wider point that has already come out in the debate. The first is Luton airport, which is next to my constituency. Many of my constituents are concerned about the air pollution impacts of an airport that is so near to a rural area; the Bill gives us the ability to look at air quality and hopefully to impose binding targets in a localised way. The second issue is chalk streams. We have many unique historic chalk streams in my constituency; the Bill allows us to deal with abstraction in a smarter way. It is a good Bill, but let us make sure that this is the beginning, not the end, of the process.

17:39

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

When we consider the context in which this debate is taking place, it is important to remember that, in the 1980s, Britain was known as the dirty man of Europe for its air pollution and for its contaminated land and water. It is largely because of 45 years of European Union membership, which concluded at the end of last month, that, more often than not, Ministers had their minds focused on the issue—whether that was to make sure that they did not end up in European courts, or to make sure that Britain was not subject to fines. I guess that we come to the debate today thinking about why it is we have this issue of divergence with the Environment Bill. To be frank, this is not a Government whom I trust very well. It is a Government who said that Parliament would not be prorogued—it was prorogued. It is a Government who said that there would not be an election—there was an election. So, forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I struggle with this notion that we put all these powers into the hands of the UK and that, as a result of divergence, Britain will have higher rather than lower standards when it comes to the environment.

We know that that is the case because, when he was on “The Andrew Marr Show”, the Foreign Secretary spoke about the need for divergence. We know from leaked documents in the Financial Times and on the BBC that there is a desire on the part of the Government to see divergence in order to get free trade agreements over the line. That is something that is very much in the public domain.

[Bim Afolami]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is very generous of him. On the point about whether he trusts the Government on divergence and how we will adapt to these environmental challenges, is that not his party’s policy in relation to independence—that, by becoming independent, it will give the Scottish people the ability to do things differently and therefore, he hopes, better? Surely he can recognise the fact that, by having these powers on the environment, it gives us the ability as a country to do things in a better way.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The only part that he missed out in his argument is that the Scottish National party’s proposition for independence is to be back in the European Union, where there are higher levels of environmental standards. That is the precise reason why I did not want to leave the European Union and why I want Scotland to be an independent state within it.

I want to speak about the need to improve the Bill. The Government, of course, have a whopping majority. I respect and understand that, and I accept the result of the election in December. None the less, although they have a large majority in this place, they do not have a monopoly on wisdom, so there is a requirement for us to work across the House and seek consensus.

The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) talked about the need for us to consider the issue of the Office of Environmental Protection. Having sat through the debate, it is clear to me that that has been quite a contentious issue. The right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) was protesting about the idea of having extra quangos. He made great play in talking about Natural England, but it is my understanding that Natural England’s budget has been cut by 50% and its staff numbers have gone from 2,500 to 1,500. It is all well and good to talk about these quangos, but it is important to put on the record that that quango has been subjected to huge cuts by the British Government.

When improving the Bill, there is a need to look at the proposed timescales for the Bill, such as the 2037 target for enforcement. That is simply not good enough. UNICEF, the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research are all calling for legally binding commitments to meet WHO guideline limits for fine particulate matter by 2030 at the latest.

One issue that I wish to raise in terms of improving the Bill relates to the Nappies (Environmental Standards) Bill that I introduced in the previous Parliament. That Bill came about partly as a result of a fine factory in my constituency owned by Magnus Smyth in Queenslie, which manufactures environmentally friendly, reusable nappies. When Magnus first came to me about this issue, it was because there is not a level playing field. There are disposable nappy companies out there that talk about eco-friendly nappies that still end up in landfill. We know that, when they end up in landfill, they can take 300 years to break down. We know that 33 billion nappies per year go to landfill and that they generate 7 million tonnes of waste. We also know that, on average, one child, until potty training at the age of two and a half, will generate 550 kg of CO₂ equivalents. In many respects, the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden is right: we do need to have honest conversations about changes in consumer behaviour. The measures in my Bill were not about telling people that they had to use reusable nappies—that would be hypocrisy on my own part; we use a combination of both. But we need to look at some of the measures in that Bill, which included promoting reusable nappies schemes such as the one in Hackney in north London and making sure that we tackle the misinformation peddled by some of the companies. I would be grateful if I could pick up with the Minister that idea of trying to incorporate some of that Bill in an amendment to this Bill to make sure that we are taking action on nappies. I am taking the Government at their word that they want to have higher standards as a result of leaving the European Union, so I am sure they will have no difficulty considering those amendments, which I would certainly be happy to table on Report, if I do not manage to meet up with a Minister, or in Committee.

On having honest conversations and what the Government can do, the first point is that, when schemes are proposed, whether a workplace parking levy or three-weekly bin collections, we as politicians need to take those arguments seriously. It is all well and good for us to play party politics from time to time, but if we are to address the future of the environment, we need to have grown-up decisions. Some parties in the House would do well to reflect on that, particularly in relation to a workplace parking levy, which has caused huge amounts of consternation in the Scottish Parliament, much of which is faux outrage.

I make my final point on electric cars because I had a dinner last night with the automotive sector. It strikes me that the Government are taking a purist view on hybrid models and pure electric, and that is something that they must revisit. There is clearly a lack of support for R and D in that industry, and we know when we speak to constituents that a degree of consumer confidence is required and that is not helped by decisions such as those on charging grants.

I have spoken about the need to improve the Bill. It will not be opposed tonight and will go into Public Bill Committee, but I reflect on the point that if the UK Government are seriously saying that they want the Bill to make our environment-related regulations even better, one way of doing that is to work across the House, whether on environmental standards for nappies or many other things. If they do that, we will take them seriously. If they do not, it will reaffirm my view that the Bill is about watering down standards for a free trade agreement, and I am sure that is not a position that the Minister wants to take.

17:47

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and his comments on nappies—an issue I know plenty about—as well as numerous other speeches from excellent contributors today.

I welcome the Bill and the significant focus that the Government are placing on our environment. Recent flooding, including in St Asaph in my constituency, highlights the fact that the provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008 are more important than ever. The Bill will help to underpin some of the changes we need to fulfil its net zero target as well as to achieve much more.

As we move away from oversight by the EU, we need a new domestic framework for environmental governance and, as has been heard, the Bill will set up a new Office for Environmental Protection not only to provide advice, but to monitor, scrutinise and enforce environmental law across the UK. We have an opportunity to lead the world on environmental matters, and I welcome the fact that the Bill makes provision in a number of specific areas. I would like to focus today on two of those areas: air quality and waste reduction.

First, up to 36,000 deaths in the UK are linked to air pollution each year, which is known, above all, to contribute to cardiovascular and respiratory disease. Much attention is focused on fine particulate matter—solid and liquid particles from various sources of 2.5 microns or less, which can penetrate deep into lung passageways and enter the bloodstream. It is important to recognise that, although the very worst levels of air pollution are found in our major cities, air pollution affects all parts of the country. Recently, I carried a British Heart Foundation particulate monitor around my constituency as part of a wider study being conducted by the University of Edinburgh. Daily exposure to fine particulate matter was relatively low at 11 to 43 micrograms of matter per cubic metre, but for brief periods in the vicinity of main roads, I recorded levels greater than 10 times the current EU limits we subscribe to, and more than 20 times the World Health Organisation recommended levels. These figures are concerning, and I am pleased that the Bill contains a commitment to a new legally binding target for levels of fine particulate matter. I encourage Ministers to go further and consider whether a specific figure should be included in legislation at this point, based on WHO recommendations of an annual mean level of 10 micrograms per cubic metre.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I support my hon. Friend’s point. The legal enforceability of these limits is a vital consideration for the House. I was deputy leader of a local authority that took the last Labour Government to judicial review to try to force them to comply with EU air quality limits from which they sought and achieved a derogation, meaning that my constituents continue to be subject to the emissions from Heathrow, which already far exceed those limits. That demonstrated to me the weakness of the enforcement. As the new Office for Environmental Protection comes forward, I urge Minister to take very seriously the concerns outlined by my hon. Friend and which I support. Our residents want us rigorously to ensure that the limits are enforced at a local level.

[Dr Davies]

That is quite right, and—in addition to average annual exposure—daily maximum exposure limits are also important.

Let me turn to waste reduction. The mantra of “reduce, reuse, recycle” remains as relevant as ever. Many local authorities have effective recycling initiatives in place. Denbighshire County Council in my constituency offers popular co-mingled and food waste collections. In Denbighshire, the capture rate of dry co-mingled recyclables is estimated at a very impressive 85% to 90%. Those recyclables go on to be separated at a modern and efficient site in Deeside. When looking to make new provisions, we should not lose sight of such successes, but equally we need to consider whether we can reduce the amount of waste we are producing, and, while our drive to reduce single-use plastics is ongoing, what our approach is to energy recovery through incineration. In particular, we should not generally be shipping plastic waste abroad, and certainly not without a clear idea as to how it will be managed appropriately. I am pleased that the Bill makes reference to the regulation of such shipments.

Producer responsibility is a key element of the Bill. I welcome the UK-wide provisions that encourage businesses to pay the full net cost of managing their products at end of life. This can help to drive up the use of sustainable and more easily reusable and recyclable packaging, and improve labelling on recyclable content. In doing so, however, we should consider the approach to small businesses and the need to avoid a disproportionate impact on them. It is also important to be clear about the timescale for the introduction of such a charge, as larger companies are likely to have the resources to develop more environmentally friendly products, whereas small and medium-sized enterprises might not have the same flexibility.

I endorse the proposal to facilitate a charge in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for single-use plastic items issued in connection with goods and services—for example, takeaways—following the clear success of the carrier bag charge, but we need to ensure that reasonable alternatives are widely available.

Many are pleased to see the proposals relating to a deposit return scheme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and I am glad that the programme has the support of the Food and Drink Federation. A deposit return scheme can help to increase reuse and recycling, and tackle litter, but great thought needs to go into its set-up. For the sake of both consumers and producers, such a scheme needs to operate—or at least be compatible —on a UK-wide basis. We need to be certain that it makes environmental and practical sense to collect certain materials via a deposit return scheme as opposed to kerbside recycling schemes, and to bear in mind the ongoing economic viability of these local authority recycling schemes, which are partly funded by the collection of valuable materials such as aluminium.

The Government may want to consider the impact of such a scheme on small business owners and in particular shopkeepers. Many convenience stores will not have the space to store bottles or install reverse vending machines, and it is a real concern of the industry that customers will change their shopping habits towards larger stores as the deposit return scheme is introduced, as they have done in Germany.

I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Bill, welcome the provisions within it and look forward to seeing it progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am afraid that I have to reduce the time limit to six minutes.

17:54

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Since before the EU referendum in 2016, my constituents have been raising concerns that Brexit would mean a watering down of the most important protections we have derived as a consequence of our membership of the EU. Again and again those fears were dismissed. We were told there was nothing to fear, accused of scare- mongering, and told to be quiet. Yet at the first test before them, the Government have failed. They have failed to reassure my constituents at all—failed to make a commitment to keep pace with EU standards and to avoid slipping back. The Government could easily have put a commitment to non-regression into this Bill. There is no reason not to do so. This is not about whether, in any hypothetical scenario, the Government cannot go further and faster than the EU; it is about being certain that we will not slip backwards. This is a fundamental breach of trust and of the commitments that were made both during the referendum campaign and at every stage subsequently by those who argued to leave.

Air pollution is one of the issues of greatest concern to my constituents. We have in Dulwich and West Norwood areas of extremely poor air quality. My constituents have watched with dismay as the Tories have been taken to court three times over illegal levels of air pollution and, instead of reacting with the concern and urgency that such a legal defeat would demand, have chosen to spend public funds unsuccessfully appealing against the court decisions—funds that could have been spent on developing the comprehensive air quality strategy that this country so badly needs. That strategy is still missing from this Bill. Air pollution is a public health emergency. Toxic air affects every organ of the body and contributes to as many as 40,000 premature deaths a year. In this context, it is inexcusable that the Government will not commit in this Bill to meet legally binding WHO targets for particulate matter by 2030.

On plastic pollution, again this Bill contains a woeful lack of ambition and detail.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend speaks eloquently about the very serious challenge that this country faces on air quality. Does she agree that this is a matter not just for London boroughs but for almost every urban area and some rural communities, and that it is one of the most significant threats to public health that is emerging in the 21st century?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a fundamental flaw of the approach that this Government have taken over the past five years that they have again and again pushed responsibility for air quality down to local authorities, forgetting that the circumstances are different in many areas of the country and that it is not within the gift of local authorities to address many sources of air pollution.

The role of plastic pollution in the ecological crisis is profound and devastating. So much single-use plastic is completely unnecessary. The Government could take action to begin the elimination of it now, yet this Bill introduces no bans. I want to draw attention particularly to the role of single-use sachets common across the catering and cosmetics industries. Globally, 855 billion sachets are thrown away every year—enough to wrap the entire surface of the globe in plastic. Replacement materials are available for most sachet packaging that render the use of plastics in sachets completely unnecessary. So I ask the Government to amend the Bill to include provisions under the banner, “Sack the Sachet”, to eliminate this harmful and unnecessary form of plastic pollution.

Finally, I want to address the related issues of biodiversity gain and nature recovery. In relation to biodiversity gain, there are key weaknesses and omissions in this Bill. Biodiversity gains should be protected in perpetuity. National infrastructure should not be exempt from it, and the provisions should cover the private as well as the public sector. I ask the Minister to look again at the proposals for biodiversity gain to ensure that they are comprehensive and genuinely deliver the net improvement that we need to see.

As parliamentary species champion for the common pipistrelle bat, I have similar concerns about the proposals in the Bill for nature recovery strategies. Nature recovery strategies have the capacity to play an important role in restoring habitats and enabling species recovery, but they will do that only if they are deliverable as well as descriptive. That means the Government resourcing local councils to prepare and implement nature recovery strategies. Will the Minister confirm that new burdens funding will be allocated to local authorities, to enable nature recovery strategies to be meaningful for the long term?

The Bill provides an opportunity to demonstrate that the Government are serious about the climate emergency and ecological crisis. As currently drafted, it does not do so, and there are critical weaknesses that, if left unaddressed, will prove to be fundamental flaws. I ask the Government to commit today to ensuring that the Bill cannot result in our regressing from EU standards; to strengthening many of the provisions; and to giving teeth to enforcement. The emergency we face demands nothing less.

18:00

[Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate all my hon. Friends on their excellent maiden speeches. I made my maiden speech on Monday, partly so that I could make a contribution on such an important issue. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson), I quoted Rudyard Kipling in my maiden speech, and I think his words bear repeating, because he says it so much better than I ever could. He wrote:

“Our England is a garden, and such gardens are not made

By singing: ‘Oh, how beautiful,’ and sitting in the shade”.

Of course, that does not just apply to England—but the point is that we cannot just sit back. We have to work to preserve the things that we cherish, and I can think of few more important things to cherish than our environment.

The acceleration of human impact on the environment and subsequent growth in public demand to act make the ambitions of the Environment Bill essential. Habitat erosion, species loss and the disappearance of wildlife are problems for today, not tomorrow. The Government have rightly been ambitious in the Bill, and it should become a key driving force in our 25-year environment plan. Some 41% of species in the UK have declined in the past 50 years. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), I remember the dawn chorus. House sparrow numbers have declined by 60% since the 1970s.

I would like to make special mention of chalk streams. Some of our most beautiful rivers are chalk streams. They have been described as England’s rainforests because of their importance to our landscape and ecosystems. With their pure clear water, they are ideal for wildlife, allowing many species to thrive and breed in their water, on their banks and in their environment. Most of the world’s chalk streams are in England, and some of the best are in my constituency of Hertford and Stortford.

The Rivers Lea, Ash, Mimram, Beane and Stort are threatened by excessive abstraction, particularly since they face the effects of new developments with tens of thousands of houses. I welcome the abstraction licensing reforms, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) that we must take stringent measures to protect the rivers that serve us. Mandating a requirement for biodiversity net gain in the planning system is another extremely important step in the challenge to reverse environmental decline for future generations, while building homes and infra- structure for them.

We need to bring communities with us on this journey—communities such as the great farming community in Hertford and Stortford. I ask the Government to ensure that we have a system under which welcome covenants are introduced with flexibility and clarity, so that farmers and others do not sign away land without truly understanding the often irreversible implications for them and future generations.

Finally, I would like to highlight the impact that engaged communities can have at a local level. The River Lea Catchment Partnership and the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust are delivering great results, highlighting the importance of our local chalk streams and bringing back water voles to the rivers for the first time this millennium. Some 140 volunteers were out in Hertford last weekend planting a hornbeam hedge, which will draw in more wildlife to a recreation ground and contribute to our carbon reduction process. Yet another group were installing mink-proof nesting boxes for kingfishers along the River Stort. I would like to commend all those groups and others like them. They demonstrate the power of engaged communities and, along with the ambition and scope of the Bill, they are at the forefront of ensuring that we hand over a healthy, biodiverse world to our children and grandchildren.

18:05

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in this very important debate, and I congratulate everyone who has made their maiden speech.

After years of Government inaction on the environment and of facing an increasing climate emergency, the eyes of the nation—not only young people, but especially young people—are on this debate and on us today, asking: is this going to go far enough, is this going to go fast enough, and is this what Brexit was really all about? I do not think the Bill does any of those things, and I will outline a few of the areas I think my constituents in Putney are very concerned about, but which are also of real impact for people not only across the country but the world.

The first area is air pollution. New figures from Public Health England have revealed that the risk of dying from long-term exposure to London’s toxic air has risen for the third year running. King’s College research shows that, by the age of 10, children in London have a missing lung capacity the size of an egg for each lung. That will not grow back: it is permanent damage. It especially affects the poorer people of London, who often live on the most affected roads.

Putney High Street in my constituency is one of the most polluted streets in London, and I think we would find that many more were polluted if there were more air monitors. Green buses have made a huge difference to Putney High Street and to reducing air pollution, thanks to support from the Mayor of London and the Assembly, but more must be done. I am delighted that the Mayor is committed to meeting World Health Organisation targets for London by 2030.

There are many ways in which this Bill fails to be ambitious enough on air pollution. It should include a legally binding commitment to meet World Health Organisation guideline levels for fine particulate matter pollution by 2030 at the very latest. Why have the Government chosen not to commit to WHO recommended guidelines in this Bill? They should strengthen the Office for Environmental Protection, making it independent and robust, and granting it the ability to levy fines and to make binding recommendations. It needs to have teeth, otherwise it will not be the effective body we need it to be, and we will not go far enough fast enough.

The Bill should include more of a modal shift towards cycling and walking, which is absolutely essential to cleaning up our air.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with Cycling UK, which is calling for an amendment to the Bill that would bring back the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998 and amend it to require the setting of targets for road traffic reduction? That could make a big contribution to a modal shift, and to improving air quality and indeed carbon emissions.

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree with cycling campaigners across the country who are asking for this. I know this Bill has an annual reporting mechanism on air quality, but I would like it to include this so that our roads become safer and to make it easier to store our bikes as well—two things that are absolutely essential to increasing cycling in the country.

The second area is Heathrow airport. Tomorrow the Court of Appeal is due to rule on a legal challenge to plans to build a third runway at Heathrow airport. The expansion of Heathrow is fundamentally at odds with the aims of this Bill. The two are completely incompatible, and expansion cannot go ahead. An expanded Heathrow will increase the UK’s carbon emissions by between 8 megatonnes and 9 megatonnes of CO₂ per year, with much of it being dumped on green spaces such as Putney Heath in my constituency. It will dwarf a huge number of other carbon reduction areas that we might consider and that might be introduced by councils across this country.

Heathrow expansion will worsen air pollution levels in Putney. The Government have accepted that it would have a “significant negative” effect on air quality, and they have provided no evidence to show how Heathrow can both expand and comply with legal limits at the same time. It will also result in jobs being drawn away from other regions by 2031. According to analysis by the New Economics Foundation of the Department for Transport’s own data, jobs would be drawn away from regions—for example, 2,360 jobs would be drawn away from Bristol, 1,600 from Solihull, and 1,300 from Manchester. This is not just a London issue and problem. Heathrow expansion will result in an additional 260,000 flights per year, which is not compatible with the climate crisis we face. I therefore implore the Minister to intervene and reverse the Government’s decision to allow the expansion to proceed, and to use the Bill to legislate against all airport expansions that cannot clearly demonstrate that environmental targets will be met.

My third point is that the Bill must strengthen, rather than dilute, the European Union environmental framework that it replaces. The EU possesses one of the most comprehensive and effective environmental legal frame- works in existence. Currently, 80% of our environmental laws come from the European Union, and those laws have brought many benefits, such as a 94% drop in sulphur dioxide emissions by 2011. We were losing 15% of our protected sites a year, but thanks to EU regulation that is now down to 1%. More than 90% of UK beaches are now considered clean enough to bathe off. My constituents in Putney are concerned that the Bill will water down the protections that the EU has given us, and I have been inundated with emails about that. The Bill must include a straightforward and substantive commitment to the non-regression of environmental law.

My fourth point is that the Bill does not go far enough to protect our oceans. Right now, 93% of fish populations are overfished, and only 1% are properly protected. Next month is a huge opportunity to take action at the Global Ocean Treaty negotiations, and I implore a senior Minister to attend those negotiations and set ambitious targets—I would like to know whether that is being planned.

Communities in Putney experience some of the most acute environmental problems facing the UK. They suffer from some of the highest levels of air pollution in the country, and they will be some of the biggest losers following an expanded Heathrow. They cannot afford to have environmental standards go any lower. For that reason, I believe that the Bill fails them, and I implore the Secretary of State to do better. This long-awaited Bill is just not good enough—it is not good enough to say that it is okay. It will not tackle the climate emergency. It must include targets and more resourcing for local councils, and it must go further and faster on air pollution and carbon reduction. Only then will it be worthy of the label “world leading” on environmental action.

18:12

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I am delighted that the Government have introduced this Bill which, together with the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill, shows that we are serious in our resolve to improve the environment and tackle climate change. I congratulate the Secretary of State and his Ministers on creating a structure for long-term environmental improvement, on the application of the principle that the polluter should be financially responsible for the life-cycle of its products, on ensuring an improvement in the air that we breathe, and on seeking to improve biodiversity through the planning system. I am sure that all those proposals have widespread support.

Our aim must be to achieve the Bill’s goals while minimising the bureaucratic burden and retaining a sense of fairness in the application of its policies. With that in mind, I respectfully suggest that further improvements can be made to the Bill in the following three areas. First, the requirement to demonstrate a 10% increase in biodiversity currently applies to every planning application, irrespective of the size or nature of the development. Requiring a professional assessment of the biodiversity impact pre and post the development of a garden room extension, for example, first by the applicant and then by the planning authority to ensure conformity, is likely to increase bureaucratic costs, while not making any significant improvement to biodiversity. To address that, I invite the Secretary of State to consider exempting small planning applications, perhaps relating to single dwellings.

Secondly, the proposed powers to revoke or amend water abstraction licences without compensation, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the revocation is necessary, have caused considerable concern among the farming community in my constituency, reliant as many of them are on abstraction licences to grow the food that we all need. I declare an interest, as a director and shareholder of such a farming company.

The subjective and undefined nature of the term “satisfied”, taken together with the chilling application of the all-encompassing “precautionary principle”, would impose a daily threat to every such dependent farming business of being effectively closed down without compensation on 28 days’ notice, all within the discretion of the local Environment Agency official. This is the Environment Agency that has no democratic oversight and currently no remit to consider the economic or social impact of its actions. What farm reliant on abstraction licences could afford to invest under such ongoing threat? What bank would lend on such a risk?

I encourage the Secretary of State to look again at offering periods of certainty associated with the grant of abstraction licences and requiring any decision to revoke or amend them to have proper regard to all relevant factors, including socioeconomic impacts, during the decision-making process. To have regard to all relevant circumstances when taking a decision is surely a basic principle for sound decision making.

Thirdly, I welcome the introduction of the concept of conservation covenants, but, to my reading, the current drafting of clause 102 leaves open the risk that a landowner could enter into a legally binding agreement that will apply to land in perpetuity without meaning to do so. There is no requirement for a qualifying agreement expressly to state that a legally binding conservation covenant is being created that may be binding in perpetuity—only that the document “appears” to show such an intent. If the agreement is silent on its term, it will be held to apply forever. I encourage the Secretary of State to consider making the identification of a conservation covenant and its term express requirements, to avoid unintended consequences and resulting litigation.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, but its very ambition brings with it the potential for discord, as big changes will inevitably alienate at least a portion of society. On this wider note, and contrary to the apparent view of many of the Opposition speakers, I have faith in democracy. It is to me a self-evident truth that the best way to ensure acceptance of difficult policies is to have democratic oversight of the implementation process. People must continue to have a say in how they are governed if we are to retain their consent. Planning decisions, while often unpopular, are generally accepted as being part of the democratic process. Compare that with the feelings engendered by the sometimes arbitrary approach of, for example, the Environment Agency when seeking to impose its assessment of environmental protection. The frustrated, impotent despair of constituents. the subjects of such decisions, will be familiar to many hon. Members.

I look forward to the day when we collectively address the democratic deficit of the raft of policy-making non-governmental institutions. The Environment Agency and Natural England would be a good place to start.

18:18

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate, especially after so many passionate and thoughtful contributions. Protecting the future of our natural environment must be a top priority for this Parliament. We have seen all too clearly in recent weeks the impacts of extreme weather, in the UK and across the globe. Without urgent and concerted efforts to tackle the climate emergency, such weather events will only become more frequent and more severe.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said in his opening speech from our Benches, we need ambitious targets and consistent action across the whole of Government to achieve them. The Bill provides a critical opportunity to strengthen environmental protection, safeguarding and enhancing the countryside and green spaces that we value, but it can also ensure that more people can access them, enjoy them and engage with the natural world. I want to restrict my remarks to this aspect of the Bill.

We know why access to green space matters. As a country, we face rising obesity levels, increasing evidence of poor mental health and widening health inequalities. A recent paper published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology found that visiting nature at least once a week was positively associated with general health and that connection with nature was positive for both physical and mental wellbeing. For example, people who live within 500 metres of accessible green space are more likely to meet recommended levels of physical exercise. Engaging with nature also encourages people to adopt pro-environmental behaviours.

I think the Government understand this. DEFRA’s 25-year environment plan recognises the benefits of countryside access and notes that the number of people who spend little or no time in natural spaces is too high. It specifically refers to data from the monitor of engagement with the natural environment survey, which shows that 12% of children do not visit the natural environment each year. The plan also recognises that the lack of access to nature is not equal. Residents in the most deprived communities tend to suffer the poorest health and have access to significantly less green space than people living in more affluent areas.

I am acutely conscious, as an MP representing an urban area with significant levels of poverty, that my constituents should not be disadvantaged in terms of access to wildlife-rich green space, and I know that this concern is shared by Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, Greener UK and other national bodies, including the Ramblers—I declare an interest as a member—and Cycling UK. I and they welcome the Bill, including the introduction of a framework of legally binding targets, but I hope that it can be strengthened by requiring the Government to introduce targets around access to the natural environment and by giving the introduction of such targets in this area greater priority and certainty.

That could complement measures in the Agriculture Bill, which sets the framework for future financial assistance to landowners, including to support public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland and woodland, and better understanding of the environment. For example, clearer targets in the Bill could help to direct finance to improve the accessibility of public rights of way networks. Failing to give greater priority to targets to connect people to nature would be a missed opportunity.

I also call for two key elements of the Bill—biodiversity gain and local nature recovery strategies—to be supported by clear legal duties on local authorities, but, very importantly, backed by adequate resources and framed in such a way that they promote collaboration between planning authorities. As Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust notes, without these measures there is a real risk of deepening social inequity, with biodiversity gains potentially being exported to more distant parts of the county. Without appropriate resources, authorities may find it difficult to protect, let alone expand, green space, while also facing pressures to find space to meet targets for housing and transport infrastructure.

Let us not miss this once-in-a-generation opportunity for joined-up government, promoting health and well- being, boosting pro-environmental behaviour and ensuring that future generations understand and value the natural world.

18:23

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill. Indeed, I spoke the first time it was debated on 28 October, and the concerns I expressed then are very similar to those I have heard today across the House. Clearly, the Office for Environmental Protection does not have the teeth it needs. There are ongoing issues about water pollution—certainly the current regime from the Marine Management Organisation and its testing body, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, a European body, is not fit for purpose. I also spoke about air quality and the challenges there, particularly with regard to the assistance needed from central Government to local government. It is on local government that I wish to focus my remarks this evening.

The Bill rightly places many obligations on local government and the whole public sector, but there are no counterbalancing obligations on Government to provide support. I am lucky. Both Teignbridge, my district council, and Devon County Council have declared a climate emergency and are putting plans in place and setting up a forum to secure local input. They need that forum. They need a way of interacting with the Government—this needs to be a joint project.

Devon aims to be carbon-neutral by 2030. That is a hugely ambitious aim, which certainly could not be achieved without central Government support. The county council has already reduced the carbon footprint by 40% since 2012-13, and has reduced carbon emissions from street lighting by 75%. It has established a net zero taskforce across the public-private voluntary sector, and has involved Exeter University. It is calling for evidence, and it has a new citizens panel. With the local enterprise partnership, we aim to make the region the UK’s provider of renewable energy, delivering—best case—£45 billion to our regional economy, but there are huge challenges involving, for instance, transport and travel.

In rural areas such mine, the car is key. We do not have many buses and we do not have many trains, so what might the Government do to support us? Many people in extremely rural areas have very old cars, and will not be able to afford a spanking new electric car. There will have to be a subsidy. Moreover, we do not have the necessary charging points. Teignbridge, my local district council, has two—or at least is applying for two—but that will not get us very far, especially as the car is the main form of transport.

If the Government would like to encourage buses, that would be fantastic. Give us some more, and make them electric! In that case, would the Secretary of State have a word with his opposite number in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government? At present, we are not allowed to apply for the new electric town bus scheme because we are not deprived enough. Well, Europe used to think that we were deprived enough: we used to get quite a lot of money. I sincerely hope that Ministers will look at that again.

As for trains, we are hoping that some of the new Beeching lines will be opened, but let us have some new trains—new electric trains. As for ships, yes, there is a lot water in the south-west, and there is a port in my constituency. Scouring is not the answer to environmental problems. The shipping industry knows that, and so do the Government, so will the Secretary of State do something about it?

We also need support from central Government for housing and planning. The planning regime is supposed to deal with environmental issues, but not in the way that is envisaged in the Bill. Significant change is needed. We know that building regulations are not fit for purpose: we need only look at our cladding problems to see that. Those regulations need to be rewritten with environmental issues in mind. We must give our district councils power to say no when developers come forward with plans that do not meet environmental criteria, never mind any others.

Building design and structure need a great deal of review, and I am afraid that we cannot rely entirely on the private sector for that. The Government have focused on domestic dwellings, but what is wrong with individual industrial buildings? What is wrong with the local hospital, school and fire station? Should they not be required to have solar panels fitted? The last attempt that was made locally in my area was refused by the Government because they wanted to do it themselves, and I cannot see that happening. There has been a great focus on solar panels for one of my local schools, Newton Abbot College, but the Government have said no, which is not right.

I welcome the standardisation of waste collection, but would the Government ask some of our retailers to consider possible alternatives to plastic? All that has happened is that we have moved from single-use bags to multiple-use bags which are being treated as single-use, or else retailers are giving us paper bags that simply break. We have rain in this country, and when it rains on a paper bag it dissolves in your hands. Will the Government do something technically to support a bit of research to sort this out, and get the retailers to sort out their packaging, which is really hard to recycle? They should keep it simple.

This is not all about objects and buildings; it is about people and processes. The Government should be asking the public sector to think about how it can do things differently. In primary and secondary healthcare, technology could be used far more efficiently to reduce our carbon footprint.

In summary, let me say this. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to some proper research? Will he commit himself to some sort of subsidy, particularly for those of us in rural areas? Will he engage with the private sector? Competition is a good thing, but reinventing the wheel is a complete waste of everyone’s money. Will he provide a local government forum so that we can raise issues and share solutions, and give young people a forum with which to engage? I sincerely hope that I will receive some responses from the Minister—if not tonight, in a written reply.

18:29

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I welcome both the Bill and the Government’s vision to ensure that we have a vigorous and ambitious environmental strategy as we leave the European Union. Generally, I believe that the Bill provides the necessary framework to protect and restore our natural environment, as promised in the Conservative general election manifesto. I acknowledge the work that the Government have done, and I will highlight briefly four areas of particular importance to the people I represent in Waveney and north-east Suffolk.

The Bill will enable the development of a nature recovery network, providing over 1.25 million acres of additional wildlife habitat to protect and restore wildlife. Such schemes should be widely encouraged, and I pay tribute to those involved in projects locally, including Bonds meadow in Oulton Broad, an historic landscape in a now urban area run by local community group, and Carlton marshes, an exciting and ambitious project promoted by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust to create a unique Suffolk broads landscape right on the edge of Lowestoft.

The Government’s clean air strategy should help to cut air pollution and save lives, and while the commitments to tackle air pollution in the Bill are welcome, I believe that we need to go further to tackle this threat head-on. A report by the British Lung Foundation, published in October 2018, found that 2,220 GP practices and 248 hospitals across the country were in areas with average levels of fine particulate matter above the limit recommended by the World Health Organisation. From my perspective, given that that is one of the most dangerous forms of air pollution, it is a matter of serious concern that Lowestoft was included in the top 10 most polluted GP surgery locations in the country. The Government must make significant improvements in this area and introduce a legally binding commitment in the Bill to meet the WHO guideline level for fine particulate matter pollution by 2030. We must also improve the monitoring of air pollution at both national and local level, to include accessible and robust health information and alerts.

Managing water is vital, and I will briefly highlight the impact of recent storms on coastal communities, such as those in Lowestoft, Pakefield and Kessingland on the Suffolk coast. In adapting to the impact of climate change, it is important that coastal communities are not forgotten and that the risk of harm to people, the environment and the economy from coastal erosion is prioritised. It is also necessary to have in mind the importance of water to agriculture in East Anglia, for irrigating vegetable crops. I declare an interest as a partner in a family firm. It is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) has highlighted, that the Government promote a collaborative approach to managing this vital resource.

Finally, it is good news that the Bill provides for the creation of the Office for Environmental Protection. It will play an important role in holding the Government to account, and it will be able to provide written advice on any proposed changes to environmental law. To maximise its impact, it will be crucial that the OEP has independence from Government and a strong enforcement capability. As the Countryside Alliance charity highlights, the upper tribunal of the OEP must be empowered to grant meaningful, dissuasive and effective remedies. Crucially, just as policies to ensure the transition to a low-carbon economy must be embedded across all Departments and layers of national and local government, so must our environmental protections pursue the same course and be subject to the same test.

In conclusion, the Government have frequently stated that as we leave the European Union our current high environmental standards will be not only upheld but enhanced. This Bill can play an important role in ensuring not only that we have a green Brexit but that we continue to forge ahead as international environmental leaders.

18:34

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

We have had an excellent, thoughtful and informed debate, with contributions from many hon. Members from across the House. The several maiden speeches we heard this afternoon were universally first rate, and the Members who made them will have an important role to play in future debates on the environment. The hon. Members for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti), for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) and for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) acquitted themselves brilliantly.

I am informed that the hon. Member for Aylesbury appeared on “Blankety Blank”, and I can only add to that my youthful appearance on “Crackerjack”. I do not know whether that equates to “Blankety Blank”, but it perhaps goes some of the way. I am happy to visit the constituency of the hon. Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) provided that I get a tour of the brewery and a ticket for the match on 5 May when Burton Albion are going to thrash Portsmouth—my local rival football team.

All this afternoon’s speeches, thoughtful and important though they were, concentrated on the imperatives of the Environment Bill. One imperative is that we ensure the maintenance of high environmental standards on leaving the EU and that there is no regression. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) worries that standards would be lowered and that the OEP will perhaps not be as independent as it should be in terms of enforcing standards. We heard from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) about delivering on the promises of higher environmental standards, from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) about the independence of the OEP, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on non-regression.

Another imperative is that we must be sure about how we are to treat the natural environment and biodiversity in the wake of the climate emergency. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) about the imperative of countryside access and natural spaces, from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester about biodiversity targets, from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on tree planting, from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon on net gain in biodiversity, from my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on biodiversity gain and species decline, and from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) on biodiversity gain.

As for the imperative to enshrine standards on water, air quality and waste, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney about air pollution and WHO guidelines, from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on chemicals and air quality, from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, about water retention and standards, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West about air quality targets and his particular concern about beaches. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) drew attention to air quality standards, and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke about going further on air pollution than we currently are. The hon. Member for Bath spoke about return schemes, removing plastic from municipal waste and knowing where waste ends up.

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) spoke about air quality, and the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) spoke about targets and fine particle air pollution. The imperative in setting targets in these areas and more is to make them stick, and we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about milestones and the lag in implementation.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West about the need for targets to be connected. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) about the targets having no teeth and about his concerns on the indoor air pollution targets.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon about concerns that targets can easily be set aside by the Secretary of State at his discretion. Indeed, we heard from the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) about the obligations on the Government to support local authorities and other agencies in making these things work—that was a vital contribution.

On both sides of the House, there is a view that this is not a bad Bill but that it could be much better. In short, the Opposition want a Bill that is

“a truly landmark piece of legislation, enshrining environmental principles in law, requiring this Government and their successors to set demanding and legally binding targets and creating a world-leading…watchdog to hold them to account.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2019; Vol. 667, c. 90.]

That is what we want, but they are not my words. They are the words of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) in moving Second Reading when the Environment Bill last appeared on the Floor of the House.

Is this Bill, as it stands, that landmark piece of legislation? Will it stand the test of time and bind this and future Governments to the targets and practices it sets out? Is it a Bill for the future or just for the next period, to get the Government over an environmental hump, and then maybe the issue will go away? Well, it will not go away, which is why we need a Bill that delivers in the long term. Looking at the Bill as it stands, we know it probably will not.

The Bill is full of loopholes that allow the Government of the day to act, or not, as they think fit. It opens an enormous door that a future Government who are not committed to action on the environment and the climate emergency can walk through. The key issue of the independence of the Office for Environmental Protection is inadequately addressed. The target-making sections of the Bill do not cohere with the delivery sections. There is obscurity about how targets in the Bill are to be set and met. Altogether, it is not good enough.

The Bill has to bind Governments of whatever colour to doing the right things relative to the natural environment, water, waste, conservation and land use for the future, because we will secure a liveable environment and a secure home for species facing the consequences of climate change only if we do the right thing by the environment and keep on doing it.

We need a climate change Act for the environment, and what we have at the moment is a charter for now and not for tomorrow. That is why we will table a robust series of amendments in Committee. In the spirit of our jointly stated aim of making this Bill a landmark Act that will stand the test of time on the environment, we expect those amendments to be carefully considered and acted on by the Government in Committee. That is why we will not oppose Second Reading, but we expect that when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House we will be able, as a result of those amendments, to endorse it wholeheartedly as the Bill we all need for our environmental and climate futures.

18:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

I am pleased to see you back in the Chair for the winding up of this most important of debates, Mr Speaker.

Having worked on the environmental agenda in one form or another for pretty much my whole life, it is a huge honour to be the Environment Minister in a Government who are putting the environment at the top of our agenda. Not only are we doing that, but we are demonstrating that we mean action on the environment with this Environment Bill, which will be a game changer.

As I am sure the shadow Minister will agree, the environment should not be about one party or one Government. Party politics should be put aside, which is why I welcome the Opposition’s support in not opposing the Bill tonight, albeit couched in much criticism that I believe is largely unfounded. I very much look forward to thrashing that out in Committee. This is a huge moment for us all as a nation; this landmark Bill will transform our approach to protecting and enhancing our precious environment, and set us on a much-needed sustainable trajectory for the future.

At the outset, I want to applaud all my hon. Friends who have chosen to make their maiden speeches during this crucial debate. They have chosen well, for they realise that this is such an important moment in our history. I applaud them for waiting this long and choosing to make their maiden speeches tonight. And haven’t they been wonderful? They have all been rivalling one another for the best constituency, but we have heard some great things about those constituencies. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) mentioned the singing statue and the statue of Disraeli; I welcome our former journalist, with whom I have a great deal in common, as he is going to add a lot to this place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) mentioned her dog, geothermal energy and her wonderful fisherman husband, of whom she is so proud. I was almost moved to tears, because I now feel proud of him too. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), the doctor in the House, will bring so much experience through his knowledge of mental health, and I hope he will link that to the wellbeing of the environment and countryside, and the things we can gain from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) follows in the footsteps of Dame Caroline Spelman, who did so much to champion biodiversity in this House. I loved his “dare to believe” statement and I am so proud. I am hoping that he is daring to believe in this Bill, and I thank him for choosing to speak today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) mentioned beer, JCB, fluorinating and, let us not forget, Uttoxeter. She is going to be a great voice here. Similarly, let me welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi), the first ever Conservative Member for that constituency and the first ever Marco here. I loved his infectious optimism for his area, which I know extends to this Bill—this is excellent. How brilliant it was to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) about her key making ancestors and to hear her standing up for green space, volunteers and Wolverhampton Wanderers. What a wonderful wealth of talent has come into our Chamber!

Let me get back to the Bill, as that is what I am supposed to be talking about. I have to pay tribute to a few others who are no longer in this House but who did so much work on this Bill: Richard Benyon; Mary Creagh, a great woman who served on the Environmental Audit Committee with me; Sarah Newton; Sir Oliver Letwin; Sue Hayman; and Sandy Martin. They have all been key in the progress of this Bill so far, as have many others on these Benches.

Obviously, I hardly need to reiterate the urgent case for action on the environment, as it is clearer than ever. We are witnessing a shocking decline in nature and biodiversity. Our countryside is increasingly denuded of its wildlife; we have lost almost half of our breeding curlews and so many wonderful species. We are facing climate change, with flooding here and bush fires in Australia. Those things all demonstrate that we need to take action and get on with it now, and that is what we intend with this Bill. I am sure the whole House agrees with me that we need more bees, butterflies and beautiful dawn choruses, and I believe this Bill will bring that about.

I should thank some of my colleagues here, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who was so optimistic about the Bill and praiseworthy in agreeing with it. This is why this Environment Bill is critical: it will drive environmental action across the whole of Government. This is not just about DEFRA; the environmental principles must be taken into account across Government policy making, through the policy principles statements. Policy will have to be pragmatic, balanced and take account of our net zero commitments. The duty on the Government to meet our new legally binding targets will ensure that all Departments and Ministers share responsibility and accountability for driving long-term environmental improvements. The Office for Environmental Protection will be able to enforce all environmental law and it will oversee all public bodies; unlike any EU framework, that will ensure accountability at the right level. The legislation takes a much-needed holistic approach to our environment—that is one of the benefits of leaving the EU. It is so much more holistic than what was happening before.

I have a few minutes to address some of the key points, of which there were many. There were some great and insightful contributions. Many Members raised the issue of non-regression. We have absolutely no plans to reduce our existing level of environmental protection. The existing regulations were implemented during the UK’s membership of the EU and are still in force in UK law now. They are enforceable in UK courts and will remain enforceable in UK courts. That has not changed. Any targets introduced through the Bill will not diminish our environmental protections but add to them.

Indeed, the UK is already at the forefront of environmental protection and a leader in setting ambitious targets to prevent damage to our natural world. We were so influential in this policy area in the EU. [Interruption.] I have a couple of examples for the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), because he is mithering away at me. Last year, the UK became the first major economy anywhere in the world to set a legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The UK’s landfill tax is one of the highest in Europe and is effectively reducing the disposal of waste and increasing recycling. Those are just a couple of examples but there are many more.

Non-regression was mentioned by many Members, including the hon. Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and for Glasgow East (David Linden). I hope that some of the things I have just said will have reassured them.

All that leads me to the not unrelated subject of targets. I am grateful to Members from a whole range of constituencies, some of which I have already mentioned, but particularly the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), for raising issues and concerns in relation to targets. Far from there being no teeth, through the Bill we will put in place a comprehensive system that will set long-term, 15-year targets. There will be interim targets every five years—that is in clause 10—to support the achievement of the long-term targets. On top of that, we will have a triple lock in law to drive the short- term progress. Let me run through those three things—

[Anna McMorrin]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

I am not going to take any interventions because I want to get through some of the details.

The Government must have a plan on what they intend to do to improve the environment—that is under clause 7. The Government must report on the targets every year—that is in clause 8. The Office for Environmental Protection will hold us to account on progress towards achieving the targets, and every year can recommend how we can make better progress—that is in clause 25. It will all become clear in Committee. It is a step-by-step way of holding us to account and not reducing any of our standards.

The really important thing to mention is the Office for Environmental Protection, which was much mentioned by many in the debate, including the shadow Secretary of State. It was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who made an excellent speech, and the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray). My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) vociferously described the OEP and summed it up well, because he absolutely gets it. The very existence of the OEP is a clear sign of our willingness to be held to account for our actions. The OEP will have jurisdiction over all parts of Government and will hold regulators to account. Ministers will be under a legal duty to respect its independence—that is in schedule 1.

[David Linden]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

I am not going to give way.

That independence is vital for the OEP to be able to hold the Government to account effectively. It will have multi-annual financial settlements, which were welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, and they will run over five years to provide financial stability. That is welcome; even if the Government changes, that will stay in place. Crucially, the OEP’s environmental remit will include climate change to ensure that we play our part in reducing global emissions. In that respect, I truly believe that we will be a world leader.

I will move on now to air quality, because, again, this was much mentioned. Clause 2 includes a requirement to set a new air quality target to reduce concentrations of fine particulate matter—the most damaging pollutant to human health. As a mother of a son who had asthma for many years while he was growing up, this issue is close to my heart. I have heard loud and clear all the comments that have been made today. [Interruption.] I am being disrupted by notes. I thought that the note said that someone was in the bar. [Interruption.] I am being told that Bim is here, but I am not allowed to mention him. [Interruption.] Okay, so he is not in the bar; he is behind the Bar.

Let me turn now to the very serious matter of air quality, which was mentioned by so many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who is very strong on the subject, and also my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies). This Government are committed to setting an ambitious target, which has the support of all sectors and citizens to drive real change and realise significant health benefits for people everywhere. To do this, we need to ensure that we follow a robust evidence-based process where everyone’s voice is heard and where everyone can play a role. That is why we need time to work together to get this target right, which is why it is not in the Bill. Many Members have called for experts to advise on these targets, and they will. That is exactly how it will work and how the target will be set up.

I will move to nature now, Mr Speaker, which I know is something that greatly interests you. Following consultation, we believe that the 10% net gain strikes the right balance between ambition, certainty and deliverability. If developers and local authorities are able to pursue higher gains—I am confident that many will—Government do not intend to restrict them. Biodiversity net gain will work with the local nature recovery strategies in the Bill to drive environmental improvements, and those strategies will be very much influenced from the ground up by all of those people with knowledge that we so want to get involved. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) mentioned knowledge and involving people who have that knowledge and expertise working on the ground, and that is one way that we will do it.

I want to touch on trees, because that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the shadow Minister himself. The Government remain absolutely committed to reaching 12% woodland cover in England by 2060 and have reaffirmed that in the 25-year environment plan. The House should remember that the environmental improvement plan of this Bill is the first plan of the 25 year-environment plan. That is what it is; it enacts it. The manifesto committed to planting 11 million rural trees and an additional 1 million urban trees by 2022. We will shortly consult on that.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am really not going to give way, because I have not given way to anybody else. I know that my hon. Friend is a huge tree fan.

We will shortly consult on a new English tree strategy, in which we will set out further plans to accelerate woodland creation to reach our long-term goals, including our net-zero emissions by 2050, and to complement our Environment Bill. I was pleased that Members welcomed the urban measures in the Bill, too.

Members will not be surprised that I simply cannot get through all the comments that have been made. Climate change, by the way, has definitely been included in the Bill. I just want to say that there have been so many tremendous and insightful contributions tonight from right across the House. I am really sorry that I have not been able to answer all of the queries and questions raised today, but we do have answers to all of them. My door is constantly open to anyone who wants to raise these things again or share their views with me and with the rest of our team. Obviously, the Secretary of State is the key here. I really think that, together, we can make this a better world not just for us and for our children, but for our children’s children and all the creatures on this earth. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Environment Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Environment Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 5 May 2020.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Question agreed to.

Environment Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Environment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State; and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Question agreed to.

Environment Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Environment Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the imposition of requirements to pay sums in respect of the costs of disposing of products and materials; and

(2) the imposition under or by virtue of the Act of fees and charges in connection with—

(a) the exercise of functions, and

(b) biodiversity credits.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Question agreed to.

Deferred Divisions

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Priti Patel relating to the Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Question agreed to.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Minister, I will ask the Chair of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Jessica Morden, to make an announcement.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The House can see the note on the Order Paper saying that this instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. However, I can confirm that the Joint Committee has met this afternoon, considered the instrument and has nothing to report concerning the draft order.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for that information; the House can now proceed with good ease.

19:04

[The Minister of State, Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move,

That the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.

The people of the United Kingdom continue to live under the threat of terrorist violence. None of us has forgotten the terrible tragedy at London Bridge last November or the attack in Streatham less than four weeks ago. I would like once again to pay tribute to the police, emergency services and members of the public, whose swift action and selfless bravery prevented further loss of life. Those are only the most recent incidents in a string of attacks that have repeatedly shocked the country in recent years, but the fortitude of the British people and their refusal to be cowed or intimidated has made it clear to those responsible that they can never win.

The most recent attackers in this country had been radicalised and motivated by a dangerous perversion of the Islamic faith, but as the appalling murder of nine innocent people in the German city of Hanau has shown, no ideology has a monopoly on hatred. The visceral racism of the extreme right is just as likely to inspire terrorism as any religious fanaticism. We have a duty to our allies, as well as to our own people, to tackle those groups that inspire and co-ordinate international terror.

Some 75 international terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Thanks to our security and intelligence services, most of those groups have never carried out a successful attack on UK soil. Proscription is a vital tool to disrupt terrorist networks and bring those who support them to justice. Once proscribed, an organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the UK. It becomes a criminal offence to be a member, to support them or to encourage the support of others. Proscription makes it harder for banned groups to fundraise and recruit members. Their assets can become subject to seizure as terrorist property, and those linked to them may be excluded from the UK using immigration powers.

Today’s order makes certain changes to the list of proscribed groups under the Terrorism Act 2000. First, it adds a new group, Sonnenkrieg Division or SKD. This is a white supremacist group formed in March 2018 as a splinter group of System Resistance Network, itself an alias of the proscribed group National Action. Members of SKD were convicted of encouraging terrorism and possession of documents useful to a terrorist in June 2019. The group has encouraged and glorified acts of terrorism via its online posts and images. It has also issued home-made propaganda using Nazi imagery, calling for attacks on minorities. The images can reasonably be taken as implying that these acts should be emulated, and therefore amount to the unlawful glorification of terrorism. SKD is the second right-wing group to be proscribed in the United Kingdom.

This order also seeks to add two more names to the list, as aliases of the PKK, an armed separatist group that advocates an independent Kurdish state in south- east Turkey. The TAK—from the Kurdish for Kurdistan Freedom Hawks—has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in its own right since July 2006. Although it presents itself as a breakaway faction of the PKK, the Government now understand it to be an alias of that group. The same goes for the HPG, another PKK alias that is not currently recognised as such in the UK. Amending the PKK listing to include both TAK and HPG as its aliases will send a clear message that the UK recognises the ongoing threat that the PKK poses, and that we will never be a haven for international terrorism.

By way of separate order under the negative resolution procedure, we have also updated the Act to include System Resistance Network or SRN as an alias of the proscribed group National Action. National Action is a neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013. It has a number of branches across the UK that conduct provocative street demonstrations and stunts aimed at intimidating minority communities. Its activities and propaganda materials are particularly aimed at recruiting and indoctrinating young people. The group is virulently racist, antisemitic and homophobic. Its ideology promotes the idea that Britain will inevitably see a violent race war, of which the group claims it will be an active part. The group rejects democracy, is hostile to the British state and seeks to divide society.

In 2016, National Action was assessed to be concerned in terrorism, and became the first right-wing terrorist group to be proscribed in the UK. The group’s online propaganda material, disseminated via social media, frequently features extremely violent imagery and language. National Action also promoted and encouraged acts of terrorism following the tragic murder of our colleague Jo Cox, condoning and glorifying those who have used extreme violence for political or ideological ends.

It is right that we take the threat of the extreme far right seriously. That is why the 2011 Prevent strategy explicitly discusses the threat of extreme right-wing terrorism and our 2015 counter-extremism strategy sets out how we will challenge extremism in all its forms, including from far-right racist beliefs. Since the proscription of National Action and its aliases, 27 individuals have been arrested on suspicion of being a member of the group, 15 of whom have been charged with terrorism offences. Since March 2017, our security and intelligence services have disrupted no fewer than eight major right-wing terrorist plots and our Channel programme seeks to safeguard people who are vulnerable to radicalisation from the far right. Of the 561 individuals who were adopted to a local Channel panel last year, 45% were referred for concerns related to right-wing terrorism. Of course, our police forces are making full use of public order powers to disrupt far-right demonstrations and organised intimidations.

The proscriptions that have been laid before the House are a key part of our strategy. Terrorist organisations are seeking to change their names, hiding behind aliases to avoid detection and prosecution. They seek to circumvent our robust anti-terror laws so that they can continue to spread hatred and inspire violence. It is vital that the Government’s counter-extremism strategy challenges extremism in all its forms—violent and non-violent, Islamist and neo-Nazi—and it does, and will continue to do so. We will not tolerate any groups who spread hate by demonising those of other faiths or ethnicities, and who deliberately raise community fears and tensions by bringing disorder and violence to our communities. As the threat posed by these groups continues to evolve, so will our response to them. These proscriptions are part of that evolution, and I urge hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House to join me in supporting them today.

19:09

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his remarks and for his briefing me earlier today. I welcome him back to the role that he used to occupy when the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Home Secretary. Of course, I wish him every success in this very, very important role in Government.

I join the Minister in his remarks about the extraordinary bravery and heroism of those who acted to save life both at London Bridge and at Streatham. But as he set out, they are only two in a long line of incidents, so while that threat is evolving, so too must our response. I entirely share his view that those who peddle hatred will never divide us across this House.

I ask the Minister to pass on my thanks to the Home Secretary for the letter that she sent to the shadow Home Secretary setting out the logic behind this decision. I make it absolutely clear that the Opposition support the measure before the House. We support the decision to proscribe Sonnenkrieg Division and the merging and amending in relation to PKK, and the decision taken in relation to SRN. The first duty of any Government is the protection of the public. These are, of course, difficult decisions where a balance has to be found in proscription decisions as per section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

I turn first to Sonnenkrieg Division. As the Minister set out, it is a white supremacist group—a splinter group of System Resistance Network, which is an alias of the already-proscribed National Action. Members of SKD were jailed in June 2019 for terrorism offences, including encouraging terrorism and possession of documents useful to a terrorist attack. It encouraged an attack on the Duke of Sussex because of his marriage to the Duchess of Sussex. The Home Secretary’s letter on this stated that the group has

“encouraged and glorified acts of terrorism via its posts and images, including home-made propaganda using Nazi imagery calling for attacks on minorities.”

SKD is the second right-wing organisation to be proscribed, and rightly so. National Action was proscribed in December 2016 when it was found to be publicising its online material via social media, frequently featuring extreme violent images, including promoting and encouraging acts of terrorism in the wake of the murder of our dear friend and colleague Jo Cox. That is why, as I indicated, I join with the Minister in his action with regard to SRN.

It is a sad fact that far-right extremism is increasing. Last week we saw the awful tragedy in Germany to which the Minister referred, with the killing of nine people and the wounding of six others in two late night cafés before the individual concerned went home and killed himself and his mother. Before that rampage, he released what can only be described as a letter of hate to the German nation.

Earlier this week, The Times interviewed Dave Thompson, the chief constable of West Midlands police and vice-chairman of the National Police Chiefs Council, who also outlined the fact that the far-right threat is rising. He said:

“There is a greater prevalence of extremist far-right activity, and we’ve got to police that very carefully because people are not just talking about a shared ideology, they do talk about doing things…It isn’t just promoting an ideology, it is a very much fixated approach to attacking people.”

As of September 2019, on the latest available Home Office statistics, there were 38 individuals in custody who expressed extreme right-wing views; by comparison, in 2013 there were only six. On that basis and in this context, this proscription is a welcome move to tackle the threat that is before us.

I move on to the amendment and merging of PKK and TAK in the list of proscribed organisations, and adding HPG as an alias of PKK. It is worth noting that PKK was proscribed and listed back in 2001. TAK had been proscribed since 2006, and the assessment has been made that HPG is an alias of PKK. Looking at that history, it is important that as the organisation evolves, the law evolves with it. On that basis, the changes that the Minister is suggesting are sensible.

As I said, the recent attacks in London Bridge and Streatham highlight the need for a continuing focus on this area. Proscription, as the Minister will be aware, is only one part of doing that. He mentioned the Prevent programme. Could he confirm when an independent reviewer of the Prevent programme will be appointed? I am sure he is aware of the statutory obligation that requires the report to be laid before the House before August this year. It is, of course, important to have the right person in place, but time is also of the essence. More widely, can he confirm the importance of maintaining the strength of our existing security tools in our negotiations with the EU this year? The European arrest warrant, Europol and the other databases are crucial in the fight against terrorism, which recognises no borders.

Terror attacks are a reminder—a terrible reminder—of the atrocities that can happen, but they also show the tremendous efforts of our emergency services, police and security services and the resolve and strength of our communities. While these occasions are always sombre, we should derive great optimism from the strength of our communities and the resilience they show in the face of a threat of hatred that will never divide us in this House.

19:15

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

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the reasons for the order, and I join him and the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the emergency workers and members of the public who have stood up to and responded to the recent terrorist attacks. The Scottish National party supports the additions and amendments that the Government have proposed to the list of proscribed organisations.

As the Minister said, the backdrop to this legislation is a rise in far-right activity, and therefore we particularly welcome the proscription of Sonnenkrieg Division and, via the separate order to which he referred, the addition of National Action, alias the System Resistance Network. There seems to be no doubt that those are vulnerable, sick and hateful organisations that are concerned with terrorism.

We have seen recent arrests and convictions of various members of proscribed right-wing terrorist groups. On the one hand, that suggests that the powers to proscribe are assisting police officers to disrupt activity, but on the other hand, it reminds us that proscription is far from a solution in itself—it is just a small first step. The very fact that since National Action was proscribed, we have had to add NS131, Scottish Dawn and System Resistance Network shows that, for these organisations, proscription is not the end in itself but a significant inconvenience. We need to ask ourselves at some point whether we are making it inconvenient enough for them and whether there might be other ways to deal with the process of terror groups morphing into one another.

The other part of the order seems essentially to be a tidying-up exercise in relation to the PKK and its aliases. As the Minister explained, the PKK is an organisation that has engaged in violence over many years, including during periods covered by ceasefires with the Turkish Government. It remains on the proscribed lists of our international allies, so adding appropriate aliases seems logical.

At some point, we need to have a review of the effectiveness of proscription and whether there are ways we can make it more difficult for proscribed organisations. There may also be questions to ask about how we scrutinise these orders in the House, but that is for another day. These are not controversial additions, so we join the shadow Minister in lending our support to the order.

18:05

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I thank the Minister for bringing this order to the House, which is really important. There is rightly a focus on ISIS terrorism here in the United Kingdom, on the mainland, but there is also a rise in right-wing terrorism. He mentioned the attacks in Germany, but here on the UK mainland, there are indications of a rise in right-wing extremism. These groups may masquerade as different organisations and try to transform or transmute into something else, and the proscription of the SKD is very important. Has the Minister, or perhaps the Minister for Crime and Policing, had an opportunity to have talks with the Police Service of Northern Ireland? It is a yes/no question; we do not need the detail.

[James Brokenshire]

I look forward to maintaining the contact with the PSNI that I enjoyed while holding other responsibilities, and I know the importance of focusing on security in Northern Ireland. Equally, I will take this opportunity to underline, in relation to the prevention work for those involved in terrorism, that we are committed to the independent review of Prevent, and this important work will go ahead. We will be running a full and open recruitment process to appoint the next reviewer, and further details will be announced shortly.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that, which is very positive. I always expect positivity from the Minister whenever the opportunity arises, and it very clearly has tonight.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for his very important contribution. Does he agree with me that it may be useful to hear from the Minister about updates in relation to other police forces, and whether there could be a more systematic way in which police forces, perhaps like the Met, update Members of Parliament about where there may be growing threats in our regions or local areas?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. I think there probably is a method in place for doing that already. I believe there is—I know it is done in different ways in this House and outside this House—and I know that the Minister’s role as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gives him a real insight into what happens in Northern Ireland.

I wanted to ask that question because my understanding is that there is a growth in right-wing extremism in the Province, probably masquerading under the proscribed organisations already there. I know it is very important, so could I, for the record, gently refer to the IRA dissident threat? It is still very clearly there for police officers and prison officers, with booby-traps under their cars. A large bomb, destined for the Larne ferry, was found and thwarted by the police and intelligence officers—and a real biggie that would have been for the IRA. Again, however, it shows that police forces are on top of that. It is very clear to me that this is a salient reminder that IRA terrorists and IRA dissidents in particular are just as dangerous in the United Kingdom, as indeed are ISIS terrorists.

The Minister referred to going for the assets. I welcome his comment, but could we have a bit more detail, if possible, for the record? It is so important that the assets of such organisations are targeted and focused on in order to take away the money and the opportunity that they quite clearly have. In Northern Ireland, paramilitary groups are involved in drug dealing, trafficking, protection rackets and all of those things. Again, I understand that the close contacts between paramilitary and right-wing organisations in Northern Ireland and those on the mainland involve all the spheres of fundraising that they are trying to use.

[James Brokenshire]

I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman reassurance on the issue of tracking terrorists’ finance and assets. Proscription actually aids this, which is why we have brought this order before the House today.

I just want to assure the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) that my door is open to all Members across the House on issues relating to how we can brief and give updates. I very much remain open to all colleagues who wish to come and talk to me and, if they have concerns, to draw them to my attention.

[Jim Shannon]

Again, I thank the Minister for the confirmation he has given.

I have one wee thing to say on the assets issue. Very often, paramilitary groups or criminal groups turn some of their ill-gotten gains and money into businesses that are legitimate, and they may even pay tax. However, the issue of the moneys to create those assets and those money-making opportunities needs to be addressed. For a company taking on the assets, if we destroy the money-making capabilities, we destroy the organisation that is trying to succeed.

I want to raise a last point with the Minister in relation to the contact he has very clearly said he has with the PSNI. May I ask what contact there has been with the Garda Síochána? I am ever mindful that the person in charge down there is a former police officer from the PSNI, with a good pedigree, and I think the relationship should be strong. Again, would the Minister confirm that that is the situation?

[James Brokenshire]

Briefly, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we maintain very close contacts with a number of our security partners. Obviously, as he will understand, I will not go that in any detail, but I do recognise the point he makes.

[Jim Shannon]

I really welcome what the Minister has put forward tonight, and I am reassured by what he has said. For us back home in Northern Ireland, including in my constituency, and all the other people across the world who wish to build a future that is free of terrorism, the comments the Minister has made are reassuring. They reassure me personally, and I hope they reassure my constituents as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House we shall take motions 7 and 8 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

social security

That the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

church of england (miscellaneous provisions) measure

That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure (HC 299), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 November 2019, in the last Session of Parliament, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.—(Andrew Selous.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

capital gains tax

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Gibraltar) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 7 January, be approved.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Monday 2 March:

(1) the motion in the name of Secretary Grant Shapps relating to the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill may be entered upon at any hour, and may continue, though opposed, for up to one hour; the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion not later than one hour after their commencement; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply; and

(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 55(1) (Questions on voting of estimates, etc.) relating to the moment of interruption, the Speaker shall put successively the Questions on any motions in the name of Secretary Ben Wallace and Jesse Norman tabled in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 55(4) immediately upon the disposal of proceedings on the motion relating to the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill.—(Maria Caulfield.)

West Midlands rail freight interchange

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

19:13

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

Nearly 3,000 residents of Gailey, Penkridge, Wheaton Aston, Bishops Wood, Stafford, and Staffordshire have signed the following petition:

The petition states:

The petition of residents of Gailey, Penkridge, Wheaton Aston, Bishops Wood, Stafford, and Staffordshire,

Declares that the current proposals to build the West Midlands Interchange at the A5 roundabout near Gailey will lead to mass congestion in the region, with over 18,000 extra vehicles occupying the A449 and A5, erode the identity of the small surrounding villages and have a devastating impact on the environment, with the development predicted to cause over 16 tonnes of added CO₂ emissions.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government and Secretary of State for Transport to take all possible steps to reject these proposals and to ensure that the greenbelt is maintained for the benefit of future generations.

And the petitioners remain, etc. [P002560]

Secondary Education: Ellesmere Port

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

19:26

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The quality of education in my constituency is of huge importance to me; I am sure that the quality of education is of importance to every hon. Member. I passionately believe that good education is key to opening up opportunities in life, particularly in places such as Ellesmere Port, where in parts of the town, significant challenges face our young people. Such challenges mean that we cannot afford to have anything but the best. When I have seen what I believe to be consistent underachievement in our schools, I have not been reticent in demanding change. I want to reach a point where Ellesmere Port’s three secondary schools offer excellent education, so that parents in the town feel they have a genuine choice about where to send their children, and feel confident that whatever school they choose, their children will receive a quality education that will enable them to make the most of their talents.

One of the first things any parent will consider when choosing their child’s future school is its Ofsted ratings, and I will spend the majority of my time this evening addressing the experiences of two local secondary schools with Ofsted. Those two schools are the Whitby High School and Ellesmere Port Catholic High School. They both received Ofsted inspections last year within a few days of one another, and they were given ratings of “requires improvement”, and “inadequate”. To say that was something of a surprise is an understatement, as both schools are well regarded locally. The Catholic high school went from “inadequate” in 2013, to “good” two years later, after the appointment of the current head, Mrs Vile. That prompted the then chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, to say of her:

“Exceptional teachers have transformed schools that not so long ago were in desperate straits.”

In June 2015, senior inspector Joan Bonenfant said of her:

“Outstanding leadership provided by the inspirational, dedicated headteacher has been the impetus to rapid improvement.”

Mrs Vile also received the Cheshire Headteacher of the Year award a few years ago.

Whitby school’s last two section 5 inspections prior to the most recent one saw it achieve good ratings in both, with an additional section 8 inspection of personal, social, health and economic education being judged “outstanding”. The head’s—Mr Heeley’s—time at Whitby high has seen the school previously receive “good” or “outstanding” ratings; he has been the head for nine of his 16 years at the school. He has worked in schools for over 30 years, 20 of them in senior roles. He has served on numerous working groups to support education. He has been a local authority adviser. Whitby High School is over-subscribed and well respected in the area. The school outperforms many schools classed by the Department for Education as “similar”. In 2019, the school’s position within the Department’s similar schools data placed it fourth out of 19 schools in the local authority area—hardly a failing school.

I mention those achievements because, first, I do not believe that these heads have both suddenly become bad heads overnight; their records show that they have the skills, the vision and the leadership needed to produce well-run schools. Secondly, the first reaction to a poor Ofsted rating is often for the headteacher to consider their position. I know that both heads did that after their inspections, but they both retain the confidence of their governing bodies, the parents and myself.

However, such is the impact of Ofsted inspections that many heads see their careers ended because of a poor inspection. I am not saying that every one of those heads is beyond criticism, and yes, maybe some deserve to go, but we are talking here about careers of maybe 30 years, ended because of an inspection lasting a couple of days. It is because the outcome of Ofsted inspections has so much impact that ongoing concerns about the lack of reliability and consistency of inspection teams and inspectors can no longer be overlooked, especially as, in the experience of the two schools I am talking about, those inspections may not really be a fair reflection of the head’s ability, the journey that the school has been on, or the real challenges that schools face. Critically, when a school feels that it has been unfairly treated during an inspection, it has, in my opinion, no effective way of challenging it, regardless of what Ofsted might say.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am very glad to be able to be in the Chamber for some of this debate. May I reinforce some of the concerns that my hon. Friend is voicing? Concerns about Ofsted have been raised by headteachers in my constituency, including from schools rated “outstanding”. There is a need for a serious look at how Ofsted’s systems are working, to keep the confidence of schools and parents.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I shall go on to speak about some of the wider implications of my schools’ experiences. I believe she is right; we are hearing similar stories throughout the country. I would like to hear what the Minister believes should be done about that.

I have sat down with the headteachers from both schools on numerous occasions to talk about these inspections and heard from them at first hand about the appalling, horrific way in which inspections have been handled. I have heard about the devastating impact that that has had on staff morale. Good teachers have felt compelled to resign as a result of the findings, prompting expensive, time-consuming recruitment processes. Their replacement may not be a better person.

I have heard how those heads, with a combined total of over half a century in education, with long-standing, impressive track records, feel that they have been traduced. When I suggested to the heads that being a headteacher had many similarities to being a football manager, they agreed. The similarities are there for us to see—chronic job insecurity, being judged by one’s results when it is not a level playing field, and a focus on one’s last performance, rather on the progress that one may have made under that leadership. As many football clubs find, replacing the manager does not necessarily mean that performance on the pitch markedly improves.

What struck me most, and compelled me to act, was that both heads were relaying to me extremely similar experiences. I would go so far as to say that the similarities were concerning and striking in equal measure. The first major concern they both had was the apparent predetermination of their inspections. At Whitby, the head was informed before 9 am on the first day that the inspectors regarded the school as requiring improvement. How can judgments effectively be given before the inspection has begun or evidence has been obtained? Likewise, at the Catholic high school, the opening statement from the inspectors at 9 am on day one of the inspection was that the school results were inadequate. The first question they were asked by the inspectors was whether they were an academy. I think that is a very odd question to ask at the start of an inspection. Both heads, both very experienced people in education, feel that the inspections were predetermined, and that, at the very least, they were carried out in a manner designed to justify an already formed opinion, with much relevant evidence and information apparently being disregarded throughout the inspection. There were also disputes about what some of the staff said to the inspectors during some of the interviews. In some instances, comments that were disputed were used as evidence to justify inspectors’ judgments. Indeed, there were disputes of such importance that some staff felt their words had been misquoted or taken out of context and, as a result, they felt compelled to resign.

There were also distortions of the evidence given to the inspectors. For example, reference to a “large cohort” was in fact one student. This was pointed out in the official complaint, but the evidence was withheld from the headteachers, despite numerous freedom of information requests. There was also a serious concern raised through Ofsted’s complaints procedures about a potential conflict of interest regarding one of the inspectors. This concern was disregarded without further comment. As is normal, both inspections were led by one lead inspector, but it seemed that major decisions were being made by another inspector. Inspectors refused or were reluctant to meet relevant staff, despite being asked to by the school, and in their complaints to Ofsted the schools expressed their general concern that the inspections were carried out in a hostile and aggressive manner. Those concerns were simply dismissed.

There was also a question about why the inspection proceeded in the way it did at all, certainly at Whitby, where the pre-inspection analysis had identified that the school would receive a one-day inspection in February 2019. This fitted with its progress scores for two years being positive, with a two-year improvement. Nobody has been able to explain why this was changed to a two-day inspection and who made that decision. It displays a total lack of accountability and openness. A significant number of schools had better inspection ratings but had worse progress scores. Of course, the heads challenged this inconsistency but again have not been given a satisfactory explanation. They were right to challenge this and to say that consistency, reliability and justice should be cornerstones of the inspection regime.

I understand that an inspector from one of the inspections has been the subject of other complaints or concerns, resulting in at least one headteacher resigning, at the highly successful Bramhall High School. This was a high-profile resignation from a well-respected headteacher, who had spent some of her career in Ellesmere Port. She had successfully transformed a number of schools and this was a very sad loss to the system. We have to ask ourselves: how is forcing someone out of the profession with that track record helping the education system? Of course, I understand that heads will take poor judgments personally, but they are not alone in feeling unfairly treated. I do not normally have parents contact me after an Ofsted inspection, but I have had plenty here. They obviously feel there has been an injustice. The governors also feel the judgments are wrong, and both the diocese and the director of education at the local authority have said that these were the harshest inspections they had ever seen.

The schools know they are not perfect—no school is—but they know where improvements are needed and what is needed to deliver them. The inspection regime offers no practical help to address these issues and there is not a specific external budget they can call upon to deliver the improvements. I ask the Minister: when a school is told it is not up to the required standard, other than replacing the person at the top, what can realistically be done to drive improvements identified as being needed?

That leads me to the so-called stuck schools. In January, Ofsted published research and analysis on stuck schools—schools graded as less than good consistently for 13 years or more. As of August 2019, 210,000 pupils were in stuck schools, which means that two cohorts of children have spent all their primary and secondary education in so-called stuck schools. Ofsted acknowledged its role in this and highlighted the need for inspections to provide judgments that schools could actually use to help them to make improvements, but is it not an indictment of our system that so many children’s entire education has been blighted by the failure to drive up standards? During those 13 years, the Ofsted inspection process has failed to lead to any tangible improvements. Surely that tells us that the approach that inspectors currently have is not necessarily the right one.

Going back to the schools in my constituency, last summer, I went with the heads to meet the Ofsted regional director to raise our concerns, which we were promised would be looked into. Following this meeting, unusually, both schools were quickly revisited by different inspection teams as part of a section 8 NFD—no formal designation—inspection and monitoring visit. The resulting reports following those visits painted a very different picture of both schools. So different are the comments that it has to call into question how both schools could make such rapid improvements in a few short weeks.

Of course, the original inspection ratings remain in place. The subsequent inspections could be viewed as a sop to brush under the carpet the concerns raised about the initial process. Those concerns were at best subject to a cursory investigation by Ofsted. No member of staff was interviewed. Given that part of the complaint was about the hostile attitude displayed, there were clearly matters about which teachers should have been questioned. I think that was the minimum required. The response from the regional director of Ofsted to the complaint was anaemic and showed the problem with an organisation investigating itself.

The heads understandably remain dissatisfied with the response. After all, they would not let their own pupils mark their own homework. They asked the professional association, the Association of School and College Leaders, to arrange a meeting with the national education director of Ofsted to discuss their concerns further. His response was to decline, saying that as the association had already met the regional director, there was nothing to discuss. I know that it is possible to complain via the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted, but ultimately the service cannot overturn inspectors’ judgments, so the result of the inspections—which the heads consider to be flawed, predetermined, and not at all an accurate reflection of their schools—remains on the record.

It is my strong view that Ofsted’s complaints process needs to be urgently reviewed and changed. A new and more rigorous process needs to be introduced, with limited bureaucracy and an independent hearing to redress complaints that are upheld. During that process, schools’ reports should not be published.

Such is the crisis of confidence the current inspection regime is engendering, a grassroots organisation, the Headteachers’ Roundtable, has issued a call to “Pause Ofsted”, as has happened in Wales, while a review takes place to ensure that schools’ accountability systems are fit for purpose. The call has been supported by the National Education Union’s leadership council. Paul Whiteman, the General Secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, has said that

“significant reform of inspection is needed”,

and the NAHT’s national executive committee will be discussing the call from the Headteachers’ Roundtable at its executive meeting in March.

Headteachers are saying that the current regime fails to take into account the individual circumstances of their schools, and I am sure both heads in this case would say that their experience was an example of the systemic disadvantage faced by schools serving poorer communities. Ofsted has known about the issue for a number of years, but has failed to find a way of addressing it effectively. Knowing the effects of high-stakes accountability on retention, especially in those same schools, we must ask ourselves whether the current system is exacerbating those disadvantages, and whether such public flagellation is really the best way to improve school performance.

School leaders’ and teachers’ jobs, and sometimes their whole careers, can be ended because of Ofsted’s inspection grades, so the watchdog owes it to them to be consistent, fair and transparent when deciding its ratings. It has been said that the high-stakes nature of the inspection system is preventing schools from getting on with improving the lives of their staff and students because they must always give priority to what might be looked at in an inspection, such is Ofsted’s all-pervading influence. Some people have even called the inspection regime pernicious. That is not a word to be used lightly, and it is one that should cause us to question seriously whether the current balance is right.

What some call the pernicious impact of an unfavourable inspection can often lead to a head quietly leaving and the system losing a good school leader. How does that help the school to improve? Is the balance between accountability and capacity building wrong? We know that recruiting and retaining the best staff is a challenge at the best of times, so hearing that one of the biggest reasons for people to leave the profession is the impact of an inspection should give us cause to question whether that balance is right.

A 2017 report by the National Foundation for Educational Research on teacher retention and turnover found that the most important school-level factors associated with leaving the profession and moving school were Ofsted ratings and school types. Analysis of the percentage of teachers leaving the profession in 2010 and 2014 showed that the lower the Ofsted rating, the higher the proportion of teachers leaving the profession, and that the rate of leaving the profession was highest in schools rated by Ofsted as “inadequate”. As for the probability of teachers’ moving school, the analysis showed that lower Ofsted ratings were associated with higher proportions of teachers moving to different schools at both primary and secondary levels, with a particularly high rate for schools rated “inadequate”. Taken together, those patterns show that “inadequate” schools have much higher rates of staff turnover than other schools. Ofsted has become too all-encompassing for many of them.

The Ofsted framework has become the means by which every aspect of school life has to be considered. “What would Ofsted say?” is all too often the key question asked by those making strategic decisions in schools. As we have heard, its power is all-pervading, and its judgment is final, even when—as I believe I have set out here—there are serious questions to be asked about its methods.

It is more than 25 years since the current accountability system of Ofsted inspections and school performance tables was introduced, so this seems an appropriate moment to undertake a systematic review of the system to ensure that we have in place the best means by which to continually improve all our schools. Accountability cannot be an end in itself. It should and must lead to improving schools, particularly those serving our most disadvantaged communities. I cannot see how the inspections that my local schools had to endure have helped them to improve. They know the areas that they need to work on; what they need is support and extra capacity, not quick headlines and blame.

I know that those ratings cannot be changed. However, I urge the Minister to give serious attention to the many and widespread concerns that have been raised about Ofsted, and to consider urgently how we can introduce a system that allows legitimate concerns to be independently and transparently examined.

19:44

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing this important debate. I know that he is particularly passionate about supporting schools in his constituency, and he has raised these concerns with the previous Secretary of State and with the Department in the past. I also know that he shares the Government’s ambition that every state school should be a good school, providing a world-class education that helps every child and young person to reach his or her potential, regardless of background. Since 2010, the Government have worked hard to drive up academic standards in all our schools, and we continue to provide support to those schools that require it most. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that some schools are still on a journey of improvement. Those schools continue to benefit from the Government’s commitment of support and they are the focus of the Government’s school improvement objective.

We have introduced the English baccalaureate school performance measure, consisting of GCSEs in English, maths, at least two sciences, history or geography and a language. These subjects form part of the compulsory curriculum in many of the highest-performing countries internationally, at least at the age of 15 or 16, and they ensure that young people keep open the widest opportunities for the next stage of their education. Since the EBacc performance measure was first introduced in 2010, the proportion of pupils entering it has increased from 22% in 2010 to 40% in 2019, but in Cheshire West and Chester, the hon. Gentleman’s local authority, 48% of pupils entered the EBacc. The Government’s ambition is that 75% of year 10 pupils will start to study GCSEs in the EBacc combination by 2022, and that 90% will by 2025.

High standards have been a key focus of our reforms since 2010, but we recognise that there is still work to be done and we remain committed to ensuring a sustained improvement in standards in our schools. While the proportion of secondary school pupils eligible for free school meals in Ellesmere Port is similar to the national average, rates vary among schools in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He raised the issue of Ellesmere Port Catholic High School. As he knows, it was inspected in March 2019 under the old Ofsted inspection framework, and it was found to be inadequate. When a local authority-maintained school is judged inadequate by Ofsted, the Secretary of State has a legal duty to issue an academy order to convert the school into a sponsored academy. Each school is assessed on a case-by-case basis, and we work with trusts, sponsors, local authorities and dioceses to find the best plan for the school and give it a fresh start with a strong trust as soon as possible.

Although it is a priority to improve standards as quickly as possible, it is also important that time is taken to ensure that the right solution is found for the school and its pupils, parents and community. In the case of Ellesmere Port Catholic High School, we are continuing to work with the diocese of Shrewsbury and the local authority to identify a strong sponsor. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, in the case of voluntary-aided schools, the diocese has an essential role to play, in line with the memorandum of understanding on Church schools. In the interim, school improvement support from Loreto Grammar School is being funded by the Department. Whitby High School is a local authority-maintained school that was inspected in February 2019, again under the old inspection framework. It was found to require improvement, and it is now receiving school improvement support.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Ofsted. Of course we always continue to keep these issues under review, but as the independent inspectorate, Ofsted plays a vital role in providing a rounded assessment of school and college performance. That role has helped to raise standards in our schools. Ofsted is directly accountable to Parliament, and the vast majority of inspections go without incident. Ofsted has, as he said, a quality assurance process and a complaints procedure to deal with those rare instances when things do not go according to plan. As it is an independent organisation, I always say to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have concerns that they should raise them directly with Ofsted, as he and the school have done.

I want to touch on the Government’s support programme. When a school is put into “requires improvement”, we offer it a whole raft of school improvement measures to help to address the concerns raised by Ofsted. The Government have launched a number of programmes. For example, we fund 37 maths hubs to spread evidence-based approaches to maths teaching, including the new Cheshire and Wirral Maths Hub, led by Our Lady of Pity RC Primary School and Alsager School. Part of the maths hubs’ work nationally includes delivering our £76 million teaching for mastery programme, which aims to reach 11,000 primary and secondary schools by 2023. The programme focuses on building a deep understanding of mathematics throughout primary school and into key stage 3.

The Government’s commitment to supporting young people across the entire curriculum is recognised by other funding. For example, we have put nearly half a billion pounds into funding a range of music and cultural programmes, including music and education hubs. We also launched a four-year computing programme supported by £84 million of Government funding. Through a National Centre for Computing and a national network of 34 computing hubs, we are supporting schools to deliver the reformed, knowledge-rich curriculum.

The hon. Gentleman rightly focused on secondary education, but I want to take the opportunity to recognise the performance of primary schools in his constituency, which is reflected by Ofsted’s judging the majority to be good or outstanding. In England, phonics performance has significantly improved since we introduced the phonics screening check in 2012. At that time, just 58% of six-year-olds correctly read at least 32 of the 40 words in the check. In 2019, that percentage increased to 82%. One of the Government’s top priorities is giving all young people the best start in life—even before they begin school. It is why we are committed to improving access to early years education and supporting parents to improve their child’s life outcomes.

Five academy trusts operate in Ellesmere Port and Neston, and only seven primary and secondary schools are academies within the five trusts. That equates to just 20% of schools in the constituency. At secondary level specifically, there are only two academy trusts: the Frank Field Education Trust and Neston High School, which is a single academy trust. It is clear that schools’ appetite nationally to convert to academy status remains, with the number of academies growing from 200 in 2010 to over 9,000, including more than 500 new free schools. Today, more than 50% of pupils in state-funded schools study in academies. As the hon. Gentleman will know, where an academy is underperforming, the Department will move to intervene and assess the trust’s capacity to improve standards.

We have a range of school improvement offers, including a programme offering support to schools meeting certain criteria involving their Ofsted judgment and key stage 2 or key stage 4 outcomes. Such schools receive free advice from a national leader of education to help them identify and access school improvement resources, and the hon. Gentleman’s constituency contains both providers and recipients of that support. The offer is supplemented by emergency improvement funding, which supports schools facing unexpected challenges. The emergency school improvement fund has directly funded support for two schools in the Ellesmere Port and Neston area, benefiting both Ellesmere Port Church of England College and Ellesmere Port Catholic High School. In total, funding activity worth over £155,000 has been provided by local effective school leaders.

In conclusion, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for this issue. He has raised some important concerns, which have been raised with Ofsted, and I hope he accepts that we have heard them and we take them seriously. I hope he also understands that, when a school requires improvement, a raft of support, including funding and advice from local experts and experienced headteachers, is available to help that school secure a good or outstanding rating at the next Ofsted inspection.

Question put and agreed to.

19:53

House adjourned.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26 February 2020

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

School Exclusions

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered school exclusions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and it is super to see the Minister and shadow Minister, and many other Members, here today. I want to thank the hundreds of members of the public who sent in responses for the debate, for their views and thoughts. I also pay tribute to the Select Committee on Education, the Children’s Commissioner for England and the many charities and organisations that have done so much in the relevant area. On the day after the Marmot review, it is timely that we should be looking at one element of inequality in society that is moving in the wrong direction, and that we need to try to shift: the increasing number of school exclusions.

Soon after I became an MP, a distraught mother came to my constituency surgery. Her son, who was on the way to being diagnosed as autistic—we all know how long the diagnosis can take—had been doing well at school, but when he had come back after half term lots of changes had been made to the classroom. He was unsettled by that and ended up demonstrating behavioural issues over a period of a week. He was permanently excluded from school as a result. He was five years old. I found it utterly extraordinary.

The boy’s mother had the wherewithal to come to her MP and find a charity to help support her. She managed to overturn the decision on appeal. She also happened to be a black woman. She sat in my surgery and said, “I do not want my son to be another one of those black boys.” It was horrifying, and I subsequently learned that it was not an uncommon example and that there is a huge problem. There has been a 70% increase in permanent exclusions since 2012, and just 1% of children who are permanently excluded get a good pass in maths or English at GCSE.

Of particular concern to me is the link to the epidemic of serious youth violence, which has left hundreds of young people dead on our streets in recent weeks. In Croydon there was a review of 60 cases of serious violence—60 young people who were either victims or perpetrators of crime. Of those 60 children, every one who was convicted of a crime had been excluded from school, and one in three had been excluded in primary school. We disagree on many things in this place, but I think we can all agree that our children deserve the best start in life, and that no child deserves to be left behind. I secured the debate because too many children do not get that start, and too many are being left behind. I fear that the draconian language coming from the new Government may make the problem worse, not better.

Today’s debate follows a report by the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime on the link between violent crime and school exclusions. We set up the all-party group in 2017 to develop solutions to the knife crime crisis. We had repeatedly been told anecdotally that school exclusions were contributing to a feeling of abandonment and hopelessness among young people vulnerable to crime. There is a correlation. Exclusions have risen by 70% as knife crime has reached the highest levels on record, but it is not enough simply to draw those parallels.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. On the point about the spike in figures, between 2000 and 2010 there seemed to be a welcome dropping off in the number of exclusions. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need a fundamental re-examination of why there has been a spike in the past four or five years, to try to get figures down again, for the reasons she has articulated?

[Sarah Jones]

That is absolutely right, and the peaks and troughs in the numbers of school exclusions pretty much mirror those for knife crime. We need to understand why those things are happening and actively work to reduce the current peak in school exclusions.

The all-party group, supported by Barnardo’s and Redthread, spoke to young people across the country who had convictions for knife offences. They told us that being excluded had left them with more time to spend on the streets, getting into trouble. We sent a freedom of information request to local authorities, to get a better understanding of the state of provision for children who are excluded. The research revealed a crisis in support for excluded children. We analysed evidence from organisations such as the Institute for Public Policy Research and The Difference, charting the worrying rise in off-rolling and “grey exclusions”, and from the St Giles Trust, whose work with victims of county lines exploitation drew a direct link to those who were excluded from school.

We know that the public are concerned about the issue. Barnardo’s polled the parents of children under 18 and found that three quarters believe that children who are excluded are more at risk of involvement in knife crime. Children have not got 70% naughtier since 2012; something has gone wrong, and it is leaving vulnerable people exposed to involvement in crime. My hope today is that the Minister will listen to the evidence that the all-party group has collected, and the testimony of other Members in the debate, and agree to take some of our recommendations forward.

I will quickly look at the statistics. The latest set of data is for England in the year 2017-18, when there were 7,900 permanent exclusions—that is the 70% increase that I mentioned. The highest levels were in Redcar and Cleveland, and the highest levels for fixed-period exclusions were in Hartlepool. Half of all excluded children have special educational needs, yet support for special educational needs has undergone some of the biggest cuts. According to 2019 figures, it is estimated that there have been cuts to SEN funding of 17% per pupil since 2015. The SEN type most affected by exclusions were people in the social, emotional and mental health categories.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend referred to the exclusion of children with autism. Another issue is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. People with ADHD are over-represented in the prison population. The Mayor of London is investing £4.7 million to tackle school exclusions via the violence reduction unit. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government would do well to follow his example and invest more in support for schools and for vulnerable children?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend has anticipated something I was going to say later, which is that many organisations are pushing against the tide and trying to address those difficult issues.

There is a link between children’s family income and exclusion: the worse off a child is economically, the more likely they are to be excluded. Children who are eligible for free school meals are four times more likely to be excluded. There is a link with ethnicity: rates are higher among mixed-race and black pupils. There is a link with gender: males are more than twice as likely to be excluded as females. There is also a link with geography: the rate of permanent exclusions for the most deprived areas is higher than for the least deprived ones. We know that there is a link to what then happens in future life: 42% of adult prisoners and 90% of young offenders were excluded from school.

At the same time as the number of exclusions has increased, the number of pupil referral units and alternative provision academies and free schools has decreased. The number of APs has steadily fallen, from 349 in 2013-14 to 328 in 2017-18, yet the number of pupils has risen year on year. The number of fixed-period exclusions in those schools has risen dramatically, from 15,500 in 2013 to 26,500 in 2017, suggesting a growing inability to cope with the pressures internally.

On the issue of knife crime, there were 44,771 offences in the year ending September 2019. That is the highest figure on record, up from 23,751 for the year ending March 2014—an 88.5% increase over that period. For the year ending March 2019, juveniles—those aged 10 to 17—were the offenders in one in five cases.

I want to say something about our research on the link between knife crime and exclusion. Barnardo’s surveyed all local authorities in England, 80% of which responded, and discovered that one in three councils have no vacant places in their pupil referral units. Even where there is space, there is a postcode lottery in relation to the quality of support provided. Nationally, almost one in five spaces are in alternative provision that Ofsted has rated inadequate or requiring improvement.

It is likely that pupils who are not being educated in the state sector are being educated in non-maintained provision and, as many of us will have seen in our case load, families are sometimes strongly encouraged to home educate. The alternative providers may be offering quality provision—many of them do—but there is also the problem that many of them are not full-time, breaking the statutory obligation to our young people. Every excluded child is legally entitled to full-time education in alternative provision, but our investigation found that that is not happening, with some excluded children getting as little as two hours’ schooling a day.

The system is at breaking point, and not just because of the 70% rise in official exclusions. Research from the IPPR and The Difference revealed that the number of children in AP is five times higher than the number of officially permanently excluded pupils; the true number is around 50,000, with the growing use of managed moves and off-rolling that, again, many of us will have heard about in our case load. The report by the St Giles Trust that I referred to earlier was commissioned by the Home Office. It looked at the issue of children running drugs between London and Kent, and found that 100% of those involved were not in mainstream education; they were either in AP or not in any form of education at all.

The Mayor of London produced research that found that excluded pupils are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and criminal gangs, with nine out of 10 young people in custody in London having been excluded. Research by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime indicates that pupils in alternative provision are more likely to know someone in a gang or who carries a knife than those in a mainstream setting. Professionals giving evidence to our all-party group believed that criminal gangs are aware of how school exclusions can increase vulnerability and are seeking to exploit this fact. We even heard about pupil referral units where criminals would wait outside and ask people if they wanted to be involved in county lines as they left the unit.

Of course, those strong correlations do not prove that school exclusions are causing knife crime. The fact that someone is excluded does not mean that they will become a criminal, and school exclusion is often a symptom of vulnerability for many years throughout their life. However, there is a common thread running through all the vulnerable children who are being excluded. There is a great deal of commonality between them, because of the issues they face, and those who carry knives. They are not getting the support they need from a system that is catastrophically failing them.

The Timpson review was released last May, but the Government are yet to act on any of its findings. The review had several important findings that chime with those of the all-party group, particularly on off-rolling and the quality of alternative provision. I am sure that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) will want to go through that in more detail, but suffice it to say that it is disappointing to see the lack of action on such a crucial issue, having been presented with so many clear recommendations from that report and our all-party group.

The previous Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), said in 2018 that he would not rule out legislation to ensure more accountability for schools that permanently exclude children and place them in alternative provision. However, there have been no changes to school exclusions legislation in England in the past 12 months. The Government said in response to the Timpson review that they would launch a consultation, but that consultation has yet to be launched. They also said in their response that they would rewrite their guidance on exclusions and behaviour and discipline, which they are yet to do.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on such a vital issue. Schools such as Northolt High School in my constituency want to keep the number of exclusions as low as possible. They know the importance of that and they want to do it in a positive and inclusive way, but they need funding. The school has submitted an expression of interest to the Excluded Initiative, which the John Lyon’s Charity is running with the Evening Standard and others, to fund their inclusion programme. Northolt High School should be strongly commended for taking that initiative, but I am concerned that such an important programme may only go ahead if it succeeds in getting charitable funding through a scheme that will no doubt be overbid. If the school’s bid to that initiative is unsuccessful, would she join me in urging the Minister to commit to meeting its excellent headteacher and others who may miss out on such bids, to see whether other funding can be found to support their plans?

[Sarah Jones]

I know that the Minister is always very obliging in agreeing to meetings, so I am sure he will do that. My hon. Friend makes a good point about the Evening Standard campaign; it is very worthy and greatly to be commended, but it is no replacement for what the state should be legally providing for our children.

There were warm words after the Timpson review, but the new Conservative Administration seem to lack any recognition of the link between exclusions and crime, and they seem to be worryingly relaxed about the exclusion of children. The Conservative manifesto put an emphasis on backing headteachers to exclude children and a sinister suggestion of creating secure schools for young offenders, all the while failing to restore the per pupil funding that was cut from our schools.

A greater emphasis on teachers being able to discipline children, 10,000 more prison sentences in place and secure schools for young offenders: these are draconian measures to deal with problems that would be far better dealt with by tackling the underlying causes in the first place. It is blatantly obvious that funding cuts have meant that schools are increasingly unable to properly support the heightened needs of students, particularly those with special educational needs.

When I surveyed headteachers in Croydon, the vast majority had cut SEN funding due to funding issues. It is no wonder that they are then overwhelmed and so many SEN children are excluded. As has already been mentioned, there are many organisations, large and small, working against the tide to try to help the situation, from Another Night of Sisterhood in Croydon—a small organisation that works to try to support parents who do not know how to deal with potential exclusion—to the Mayor of London, who has awarded £4.7 million to areas of London blighted by youth violence to prevent pupils from being excluded.

I again pay tribute to the Evening Standard’s £1 million campaign, The Excluded, which aims to encourage greater inclusion in schools by funding inclusion units. Some 57 applications from local schools have already been made. The scheme is modelled on what was done in Glasgow alongside the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, where exclusions were reduced by 85%, and on pioneering London schools such as Dunraven in Lambeth.

Turning to what needs to be done, our all-party group’s investigation concluded last year and made a series of recommendations, which I hope the Minister will look at. Perhaps he would agree to meet the all-party group to discuss their implementation. School rankings and results must take account of all pupils, including those they exclude. All excluded children must have access to the full-time education to which they are legally entitled, which many do not currently get.

All education providers must have the funding and backing they need to support vulnerable children, and schools must be recognised for the central role they play in a multi-agency response to keeping children safe, with funding to support that work. Everyone working in the education sector must be trained to understand vulnerability and trauma. I have been on trauma training, and it really does change the way you view a child; anger is a cry for help, and understanding the issues is enormously useful for teaching. Schools should be supported to focus on prevention and early intervention, and every council should have a leader responsible for children excluded from school.

We know these things can be done. In Scotland only five pupils were permanently removed from the classroom in 2016-17, and in South Tyneside exclusion rates have fallen by almost 60% over the past 10 years. Wandsworth used to have one of the highest rates of permanent school exclusions but now has one of the lowest. Schools in my constituency, such as St. Mary’s Roman Catholic High School, manage to exclude tiny numbers of people despite a challenging intake and challenging issues.

My questions for the Minister are as follows. Fundamentally, does he recognise the issues that I am talking about, and does he want to see a reduction in school exclusions, or is he happy to continue to see an increase at this rate? Why are so many vulnerable children getting less support than they would in mainstream schools, especially since in many cases excluded children are exactly the children who need more support? Will he conduct a review into capacity within alternative provision and part-time education, to understand whether there are enough resources to ensure that all pupils who are excluded get the full-time provision to which they are legally entitled? Given that half of all excluded children have special educational needs, what steps is he taking to make up for the vast funding cuts seen to SEN support?

The Education Committee’s knife crime inquiry concluded that schools play a central role in providing prevention and early intervention through a multi-agency response to keeping children safe. Violent crime has doubled in recent years, with more and more young people dying on our streets. There is no single causal factor when it comes to knife crime—if there were, we would have solved it before now. We need to look at this epidemic from every possible angle and focus on preventing crime before it occurs. Exclusions must be a last resort, and alternative provision must be full-time, high-quality and properly resourced. We can cure the epidemic of youth violence if we start from the principle that no child is left behind.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

It might be helpful for Members to know that the winding-up speeches have to start by 10.40 am. I will call first those Members who have notified me that they want to speak.

09:50

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) for securing the debate.

School exclusions are the last resort for any headteacher. In my eight years as a classroom teacher in state secondary schools and as a head of year overseeing the behaviour, attendance and achievement of hundreds of students, exclusions were always the last course of action. I feel a little uneasy in this debate, because intentionally or not, I worry that it undermines the first-class work done by teachers and pastoral staff in the vast majority of schools to keep students in school while placing little to no emphasis on parents or carers. There is not some excluding spree going on; it is not a decision taken lightly. The cost-benefit analysis undertaken by school staff is extensive and manifests in many ways. I have seen headteachers keep in internal exclusion children who should in fact have been excluded, due to a fear of triggering an Ofsted inspection and breeding further stresses for teachers, pupils and parents.

I disagree with the premise that school exclusions are to blame for the rise in knife crime. Of course some young people come from troubled homes and may require extra pastoral care and educational support, but there comes a point when we must award more agency to the actions of our young people and show them that poor behaviour has real-time consequences, both at school and in adulthood. We should unreservedly celebrate schools with high expectations and zero-tolerance policies. We should follow the example set by Michaela Community School in Brent and Magna Academy in Poole, both of which have excellent Ofsted ratings, excellent results and the highest standards of behaviour.

When a child is removed from the classroom and placed in isolation or excluded, it is because their behaviour is damaging the learning of their peers or poses a risk to other students and staff. We have created a culture in schools that means we must try to find an excuse for poor behaviour of young people. It is time we start to back our teachers, not run them down. It is forgotten far too easily that teachers spend the vast majority of their time and energy to help and support the 2% to 3% who display poor behavioural discipline, neglecting for large portions of the school day those pupils who behave correctly and simply want to learn.

[Sarah Jones]

I apologise for speaking again. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore believe that children have become 70% naughtier since 2012? Does that account for the 70% increase in exclusions?

[Jonathan Gullis]

No, I do not believe that children are naughtier. In fact, I think behaviour has improved, which comes from having firm discipline within a school. Students thrive off boundaries that are set and firm, and not moveable. In the early part of my teaching career, I tried to be a friend of the kids, which certainly backfired in my classroom, to the point where I was told to my face to “Eff off” in front of my class. As I developed a firm set of boundaries, I found that my classroom reacted much better; the kids behaved because they knew the expectations. It is important to ensure headteachers set a standard that every teacher meets across the school, therefore creating a culture.

[Sarah Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore think that young black men from deprived backgrounds are the worst and deserve their higher rates of exclusion from schools—the poorer young black men with special educational needs who are much more likely to be excluded than other groups?

[Jonathan Gullis]

The hon. Lady touches on points regarding special educational needs and disabilities, and I intend to talk about my support for better quality alternative provision. I certainly do not look at this along racial or gender lines or across class lines, because at the end of the day behaviour cuts across all those different things. I represent a predominantly white working-class community, where there are students who misbehave just as much as someone from a black or Asian community in a more ethnically and culturally diverse community. I do not wish to virtue signal. This is an across-the-board problem involving people from all backgrounds.

A child’s environment affects behaviour, so why would a school having firm boundaries be a negative? To exclude a pupil is a long, stressful and convoluted process, and the fear of losing an appeal means that many schools provide a wide range of support, from educational psychologists, peer mentoring, behaviour report, positive behaviour report, incentivised reward trips, one-to-one in-classroom support via a teaching assistant, conflict resolution and regular parent or carer meetings. Those are just some of the many tactics I used in my career to keep a young person on track, but I agree that we must have better alternative provision and ensure that a wider and more tailored system of support is accessible to pupils who have been excluded or are at risk of being excluded. I do not want excluded kids to not have a proper education; I want them to be guided, assisted and supported, but my stronger urge is to protect the education of those willing to be educated and those doing the educating.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Given the statistical evidence about the number of youngsters with special educational needs who are excluded, is it not the systems within the schools—so not the teachers’ fault—and the resources available to schools, both inside the school and outside, that actually sell those youngsters short? Quite often, their special educational needs are not properly identified until after their exclusion.

[Jonathan Gullis]

The hon. Gentleman brings me on perfectly to what I was about to say. If he will allow me, I will go on, and if I do not answer his point he should feel free to intervene again.

The Government must of course invest in alternative provision, but schools also need to work collaboratively across their local areas to ensure that the best possible course of action is pursued. Solihull Academy is an excellent example of a group of secondary schools across Solihull working together to find tangible, workable solutions, creating Solihull Academy and making space in the grey area between mainstream education and SEND education. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, we absolutely have a big issue with children diagnosed with SEND needs who do not need to be in a special educational needs school but struggle to access mainstream school. Solihull Academy is the perfect example of a school that in that grey area, where those students can get proper one-to-one support and smaller class sizes, allowing them to thrive educationally while not feeling the pressure they currently feel in mainstream secondary schools. I hope that answers his point.

[Ian Mearns]

Quoting an example of good practice is all very well, but I am afraid that anecdotes of local good practice do not actually answer the systemic failures across the whole country. In my region, the north-east of England, the number of youngsters excluded from school has gone from about 190 in 2012-13 to well over a thousand in the last year for which statistics are available, 2017-18. The system is failing, and the lack of resources for special educational needs in particular is at the root of the problem.

[Jonathan Gullis]

The Government committed to investing £780 million into supporting SEND children. I firmly believe that schools go above and beyond. Having spent the vast majority of my career in schools where well over 50% of pupils qualify for the pupil premium and well over 30% have SEND needs, I can only commend the actions that have been taken. Obviously I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency or area, but I would be more than happy to sit with him and listen to his examples.

By utilising smaller classes, encouraging more one-to-one contact and broadening the curriculum, extra support will be accessible and available to kids who need it. Reasons for behavioural and social issues in our young people are widely varied and complex. It is reductive to claim that vulnerability, exploitation, youth violence and abuse will be solved by avoiding exclusions. I have been verbally abused and physically assaulted in front of pupils in the classroom, in the playground and in front of parents. The job of a teacher is to educate and to be an example, not to be treated like a punch-bag. Policies and laws are in place to protect our police, emergency workers, nurses and so on. If we do not have zero-tolerance policies or exclusions, where is the protection for our teachers?

[Sarah Jones]

To some extent, we are not disagreeing. I do not think anybody is suggesting that we ban school exclusions or that they are not a really important tool. I do not think I have met a single headteacher who would think for one minute that exclusion does not need to be there as the last resort. The argument we are making is that there has been a huge increase in school exclusions, that there is a reason for that—it has to do with funding and some of the issues about special educational needs in particular—and that we would like to see those numbers go down. Smaller class sizes, more interventions in school and more support for kids would all be brilliant. I think that we agree on those things and I would not want to give the impression that we do not, but my argument is that the levels of exclusions are increasing at a worrying rate and need to come down.

[Jonathan Gullis]

Yes, I find that I normally agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House on what we want to achieve; we just disagree on the method by which we want to achieve that.

I do believe that one issue is attendance. The reasons why kids are not attending school are often overlooked in this context, but again my emphasis is on the young people’s parents and carers, who in my opinion are failing to provide the necessary education outside the school grounds, which undermines what is then done in the classroom by the teacher. In the real world, there are real consequences. I believe that our educational facilities have the responsibility not just to prepare our young people academically, but to teach them that in life, actions have consequences.

10:00

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.

Some hon. Members here will know that I have spoken a number of times in the past year about county lines and the difficulties facing many young people in my constituency. In my experience, school exclusions are a significant event in the awful and traumatising experience of county lines exploitation. Far too many of my young constituents in Newham have been subjected to county lines or its consequences. I am therefore very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) for giving us the time and space to talk about this crucial issue.

I think, as my hon. Friend does, that the change of tune that we have heard from the Government about exclusions is truly worrying. I thought that across the House we were moving in the right direction. We had the Timpson review and repeated statements by Home Office Ministers and others with whom I have worked closely on these issues—we often find common ground and agreement—and I really started to believe that the Government were beginning to get it. I was starting to pick up a bit of hope, but that hope was dashed, because the Conservative party manifesto pledged to continue fragmenting the education system with academies and free schools, pledged to

“back heads to use exclusions”

and pledged, as we have heard from my hon. Friend, to expand alternative provision—presumably to cope with the inevitable increase in exclusions that would be the result.

I suspect that the Government know that there is already no way in which local authorities can do their duty and ensure that the local school system is inclusive. They are supposed to ensure that no student is excluded without a genuine route back into mainstream education, but this Minister must know that, often, once young people are excluded from our schools, there is absolutely no way back—none at all—into mainstream education. I am worried that the Government’s apparent direction will make that situation much worse.

I remind the Minister again why this issue is so important to my constituency. Exclusion is clearly linked with the horrifying rise in violence and the deaths of so many of my local children on the streets of Newham. When I have talked to the mums of the children who have been groomed and got caught up in the drug dealing, carrying of knives and violence, they tell me loud and clear—they will tell anyone who wants to listen—that their son’s exclusion from school was a tipping point. It did not create the problem, but it made it worse—it made it completely worse.

I talk to parents and young people and I am clear that the bad behaviour comes as a result of real and unimaginable fear. It comes from seeing things and knowing things that I would not want to see as an adult. They have seen people stabbed or shot, or their friend has been stabbed or shot. The fear that they experience is real and has real causes. The world around them is frightening and hostile—it is terrifying. They do not see the police or other adults around them as able to protect them. They do not think it is possible to protect them, so they have to protect themselves. They have to find coping mechanisms, and sometimes that involves going along with the person who is abusing, manipulating and grooming them, because they see no alternative. If collectively we do not protect them, we do not understand that they are acting out of fear and we simply punish the behaviour rather than dealing with the root causes, we will make things worse. There is no doubt about that. The young person understandably will not trust us, and we will fail them.

As my hon. Friend said, the St Giles Trust found in relation to 100 teenage boys who had become involved in county lines that every single one of them had been excluded from school at some point or had spent time in a pupil referral unit. I have spoken before about the impacts of exclusion. I have talked about how children are cut off from their friends and teachers and plunged into an environment poisoned by gangs and how that makes them accessible to groomers. When a child is excluded, it is not some short sharp shock. It will not enable the young person to rethink their life and behaviour and make a change, because there is no way back. Basically, they are left at the PRU, even more vulnerable to the groomers who are sitting outside the gates. The young person cannot escape, because the people grooming them and using them are sitting there, waiting for them to walk through the gates. The groomers are really clever: I have spoken to mums who told me how the groomers managed to manipulate their child into getting excluded in the first place, because it made access to the child even easier.

If a child is excluded, alarm bells will not ring because of truancy. Teachers who have known them as they have been growing up in the school will not see that their behaviour has massively changed, so an alarm bell about the child’s direction in life just is not rung. There is nobody to notice that they have several mobile phones, which is often a massive indicator that the child is involved in illegal drug dealing.

Let us be clear that the children we are excluding are often really quite able children. They are bright and very articulate, and why? It is because they make great salespeople. When it comes to county lines, they have the nous to know how to deal with the circumstances and situations in which they find themselves, and they can chat to their mate and encourage their mate to join them. As I said, they are good salespeople, but these are the children we are leaving alienated, angry and vulnerable. Then we put these children—they are children—with their challenges and vulnerabilities all together in the same place, and provide easy access to them for the people who want to exploit them.

As we know, pupil referral units do not provide the support that vulnerable children need. They are supervised for only a few hours a day; the rest of the time, the young person is often unsupervised and on their own. There is little mental health support, so the trauma that the kids have gone through just is not worked on in any way. There is little chance of their getting back into mainstream education. The buildings are basically like prisons, but the children we are sending there have not been accused of any crime.

Some of the children believe that they are actually involved in an alternative economic model. They have seen their mums and dads going to work and doing two jobs—the lowest quarter of wages in my constituency does not cover the lowest quarter of rents in my constituency. They have seen the adults around them basically with nothing. Then we exclude them from school, and we know that there is no way back into education, so what do they do? They think that there is only one way forward for them, and that is to carry on. We are basically giving the groomers an endless supply of victims. The kids get off-rolled—it happens illegally, but we know it happens—and then they have nothing to do and nowhere to go.

I have heard about that from some courageous women, the mums of the children involved in county lines, who are trying to stand up to the groomers. They have to make hard choices—tough choices—that I could not make about my children’s future. We need to learn from their experience, but too few people listen to the experience of Newham mums. I think that is part of what has gone wrong.

The truth is that exclusions ruin lives, create vulnerability to exploitation by organised criminals and fuel violence in our communities. We desperately need big changes to the school system to achieve a rapid reduction in exclusions. If the Government do not reverse course, and if they do not listen to Newham’s mums and the experts—please listen to the experts and not to the Daily Mail headlines—we will see more lives ruined, more crime, more murdered children and more traumatised communities with wounds that take a very long time to heal.

10:10

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) for raising this important issue. It is a pleasure to follow the powerful and challenging contributions from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and, in particular, from the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), who spoke passionately.

The rising number of children excluded from school should trouble us all. Increased pressure to concentrate on students who can achieve top results, to seek prominence in league tables and to avoid students who are resource intensive, along with the increased independence that academy status affords, provide both the temptation and freedom to off-roll and exclude certain students. This is morally unacceptable.

I want to focus on the rising number of students who are effectively excluded: the thousands of students in our schools with special educational needs that are not met. It is clear that because of counterproductive Government spending rules, many children are in school but effectively excluded from the support staff and resources necessary to enable them to get the best from their education.

In my 15 years in this place, I have never seen school budgets under so much pressure. Headteachers are having to cut staff numbers almost every year and teaching assistants working with special needs students are most vulnerable to the cuts. Teachers are overstretched as it is and now they are not equipped with the resources to teach those under their care.

I recently spoke to headteachers in the South Lakes and asked them to tell me about the challenges their schools face. Almost without exception, they said that their biggest challenge was meeting the needs of children with special needs. On top of devastating Government cuts and perverse special needs funding rules, every school with an education, health and care plan must find the money from its own budget to fund the first 11 hours of support. That means the Government are effectively punishing schools that do the right thing by taking children with special needs and rewarding schools that say to parents, “I am sorry, but we cannot really support your child here”—an exclusion in all but name.

Cuts in support staff have left teachers isolated in supporting children’s needs in the classroom. St Martin & St Mary Primary School in Windermere described to me the extremely high criteria set to qualify for an education, health and care plan in the first place. We often see that only those children with the most severe additional needs receive any funding support at all; other children with needs are left with no additional support.

Many schools in my constituency told me that parents must contend with incredibly long waiting lists for a special educational need referral, followed by delayed assessments due to a lack of educational psychologists. Children are then often refused support, irrespective of their evident need. Schools in Cumbria, therefore, have to find the resource to support the significant numbers of children who are in limbo waiting for an assessment, who have needs but do not have an EHCP, and who may never get one while at their current school.

The situation results in exclusion within the classroom. Children fall behind and feel isolated from the rest of the class, because they are not being provided with the adequate support to learn and develop. As the attainment gap grows, children can become frustrated and despondent, fostering negative attitudes to school. There is a real danger that they will disengage entirely, exacerbating the problem further. Those are often the children who end up being off-rolled and formally excluded later in their school career.

This week I have been supporting the parents of a child in my constituency, whose school was unable to support them. The school lacked the funding to meet the evident needs of this child. The waiting list for an EHCP meant that resources were so far from becoming available that the school has had to say that it cannot do what it knows it needs to. The parents’ distress is immense. I am angry on their behalf. Their child is effectively excluded from school because of stupid penny-pinching rules. This is unacceptable. Teachers and the children they are so desperate to care for are being failed.

Many children also face exclusion before they even get to the classroom. Many children with special educational needs bring vibrant and valuable contributions to the whole school, their classes and their peer groups. That should be valued and encouraged, but in reality the system makes catering to their needs feel like a pressure and burden on schools. That is completely at odds with society’s claim to champion diversity and value individuals regardless of their ability.

The Government are effectively demoralising our teachers and letting down our children, because schools must foot the bill for those first hours of provision for children with an education, health and care plan. Schools are massively disincentivised from enrolling them. We see national, systematic exclusion of special educational needs children. The headteacher of one of the larger high schools in the South Lakes told me of the real financial pressure of being expected fund those first 11 hours of an education, health and care plan out of their school’s general annual grant funding. That, on top of the Government cuts to the school’s overall per-pupil funding, means that it has no reserves or slack from which to provide this support. It is not alone. This is a pattern right across south Cumbria and beyond. I see it every week as I visit schools and listen to our teachers.

The special educational needs co-ordinator at Cartmel Primary School told me that the local authority recommends it as a school suitable for children with an EHCP. Around 5% of children at the school have one. That is significantly above the national average. While the school expresses its immense pride in its reputation for special educational needs provision and its inclusive nature, through which it earned that reputation, it is in danger of buckling under the financial pressure that falls on its shoulders alongside the usual strains on a small school’s budget.

Cumbria is as vast as it is beautiful. In rural communities such as ours, the alternative options, which a child in a more densely populated part of the world might enjoy, do not exist. The head of Langdale Primary School described how for many pupils the available special schools require travelling extreme distances. She wrote in some distress that, despite the incredible hard work and enthusiasm of her excellent team, their ethos—to be centred wholeheartedly on individual children—was coming under significant strain.

I am grateful to all the headteachers who contacted me—many more than I have had time to reference today. They are all hard-working, enthusiastic and caring, and so are their staff. I am incredibly proud of them, but they are desperate. They are outstanding professionals who love their jobs and schools, but Government funding has put them in an impossible position.

When we talk about exclusion, the finger is often pointed at school leaders. However, those are people driven to make a difference. In the lives of the children of Cumbria, whom they serve, the school leaders are the most heartbroken and outraged by how they have been stripped of the ability to meet the needs they know they should and to support those children in the way they know they should. I stand here on their behalf to say that it is not good enough. That must change for our children, our teachers and parents.

In effect, the Government are excluding children with special educational needs from having the best education, while systematically penalising the schools that do the right thing. That must change. I challenge the Minister to ensure that all funding to support children with EHCPs is delivered centrally and does not come from the school’s own budget; that there will be a speeding up of referrals for EHCPs and their delivery; and that children with additional needs are not excluded before they even start.

10:19

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) for securing this important debate and for the important work she has done as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime. Since 2012, the number of school pupils being permanently excluded has increased by 70%. Temporary exclusions, where a child is suspended for a fixed period, affect almost half a million children, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of children have been unofficially moved from schools, or off-rolled, because the school is failing to meet their needs. A YouGov survey, published by Ofsted, found that children were being off-rolled particularly when close to their GCSEs. In essence, children are being failed. We do not even know how many children have been off-rolled by schools across the country.

There is no question and no doubt that school exclusions are a social justice issue. It is no coincidence that there is a correlation between child poverty rates and exclusion rates. They are too high and they are in sync. According to research carried out by the Institute for Public Policy Research, excluded children are twice as likely to be in care and four times more likely to be brought up in poverty. Despite what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) said, exclusions disproportionately impact on black Caribbean boys, who are nearly 40 times more likely to be permanently excluded from schools than other pupils.

Perhaps most striking is the rate of exclusions for children and young people with special educational needs and disability. As a disabled woman myself, I benefited greatly from the special educational needs provision that I had growing up going to primary and secondary school, so what is now taking place for those children is a scandal. More than 418,000 children with SEND were excluded in the last academic year; the majority have been diagnosed with speech and language needs and are unable to communicate with their teachers and support networks in their schools. What is happening is tragic and clearly a result of funding cuts, despite what the Government may say. Schools are being fundamentally let down and are fundamentally not able to provide support for those children with special education needs.

The National Education Union estimates that there is a £1 billion funding gap in SEND provision for our mainstream schools. Despite what the Government claim they are putting in, there is still a shortfall. In the London Borough of Wandsworth, where my constituency is located, a recent Ofsted and Care Quality Commission inspection concluded that SEND provision is in need of significant improvement. It revealed that there are currently 170 outstanding education, health and care plan assessments, and that is echoed across the country, where children are being failed and are not receiving their EHCP plans to ensure that the support they need in school is being implemented.

Inadequate support and provision for disabled children and those with special educational needs means they are excluded from education altogether. That is happening to my constituent, whom I will refer to as Jacob. He was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder at age 10. When he arrived at his secondary school, his parents were told that he risked being permanently excluded if he failed to sit up straight or turned around in his seat. Those behaviours are unavoidable for someone with ADHD, and Jacob was soon forced into a reflection room, where he was forced to sit in silence for large chunks of the day. The refusal to make any reasonable adjustments for Jacob’s behaviour in school has resulted in extreme anxiety for both Jacob and his parents. How is it acceptable that a young child is being put through that and being treated in that way?

Jacob’s parents are terrified by the prospect of a permanent exclusion and are worried that he will never get the chance of a decent education. A decent education is a human right. Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that children who are registered with special educational needs are not given the support they need? Someone with those needs is five times more likely to be permanently excluded. Does he agree that it is time for us to adequately fund SEND provision?

We know that the story does not end there. Once a child is off-rolled or excluded from school, they face exclusion from their communities, from society and from their friends. Many are placed in what are called pupil referral units or, as many would call them, prison referral units. The published Ministry of Justice figures show that 42% of prisoners have been permanently excluded from school, so it is no coincidence that the soaring rise in school exclusions is coupled together with the rise in crime and knife crime in my constituency and constituencies like it across the country.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend mentions that figure of 42%. Does she agree that the prison inspectorate report shows that nine out of 10 young people in police custody have been permanently excluded? A report by the London Assembly highlighted that school exclusions correlate with violence and criminal activity. Does she agree that the Government should welcome the Mayor of London’s funding for additional school provision and roll that out across the nation?

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is time the Government took some leadership from the Mayor of London, who is doing a fantastic job in trying to address some of the challenges that our young people are facing, despite the funding cuts implemented by the Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central raised this issue, but it is shameful that the Government have not taken action on the Timpson review. When the Minister responds, will he tell us when that will actually begin to happen?

In conclusion, I return to the point that I made earlier in my speech: it is no coincidence that during the period in which exclusions have risen, child poverty rates have also shot up. Countless youth services and provision have closed. Schools have faced billions in cuts. As the IPPR has illustrated, children in poverty are more likely to be excluded from school, and with more than 5 million children expected to be living in poverty by 2022, the problem is set to worsen. Disadvantaged children such as my constituent Jacob are being trapped in a vicious cycle. Breaking that cycle requires urgent action from the Government to end the funding crisis in our schools, outlaw the dangerous practice of off-rolling and overhaul our education system so that it is open to all children. Finally, we have two weeks until the Budget. Will the Government commit to investing in our young people and our children, because they are the future?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker—we have two very experienced Members left—I should say that we have only about 12 minutes, so it would be helpful if they divided that time between them. I call Jim Shannon.

10:19

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I will keep to your six-minute limit and ensure that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) has an equal amount of time to speak, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) for setting the scene, and it was good to hear all the other contributions. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) referred to his experience as a teacher, which was good to hear in this debate.

The issue is twofold. We must consider the very best interests of the child in question, but the flipside is that we also have a duty of care towards teachers, who have 27 or more other pupils in their classes, to whom they must also provide an education. That scenario is already difficult for all involved, and then we add in the parents—and it can be a recipe for disaster. I was shocked to hear the hon. Member for Croydon Central refer to a five-year-old who was excluded. I find that incredible. I am glad that the matter was sorted—well done to her for doing so. It is good to see the Minister and shadow Minister in their places, and I look forward to their contributions.

I was a rather rambunctious young man, and many a broom crossed my back from my 4-foot-10-inch mother. She loved me, but she also disciplined me with the same enthusiastic passion. My hands felt the sting of the ruler at Ballywalter Primary School, but that is not how things are handled now, thank goodness.

Northern Ireland’s Department of Education publishes annual statistics on public suspensions and expulsions, and the figures from the Library show that Northern Ireland is not the worst for expulsions and suspensions. That is good news. Permanent expulsions numbered only 15 in 2017-18 and the temporary exclusion rate was only 1.4%, so that is good. The higher suspension rate was for key stage 4 pupils, who were in GCSE phases.

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), has referred to money set aside by the Department of Health and Social Care for mental health issues. Has the Minister suggested that some of that money should be drawn down to help in education? That would be important. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I sat on in the last Parliament, undertook inquiries into health and education. We were aware that in Northern Ireland children as young as 10 have experienced mental health issues. It is important to address that.

The pressures on children and, most especially, on their mental health are at an all-time high; the education authorities in Northern Ireland, as well as here on the mainland, have confirmed that. Frustration is often easily expressed in the school setting. There is an onus on teachers to educate to a high standard and yet the pressure on funding makes that harder than ever. More children are being diagnosed with behavioural issues, but there is no funding for teaching assistants or specialised teaching aids.

It is important that classroom assistants are in place. How do we expect teachers to deal with difficult children if they are not given support? The only reason why the number of exclusions is so low is that we have teachers who genuinely care, many of whom put their own mental health, physical health and wellbeing last in their list of priorities, in order to help children. We cannot pay for compassion, but we can support people in their quest to be compassionate; that applies to teachers.

Primary schools in Northern Ireland are carrying out programmes designed to help children learn breathing and calming techniques, starting with five-year-old children in P1. As the hon. Member for Croydon Central mentioned, they are an attempt to instil a coping mechanism in children, so they can process their feelings. I ask the Minister: are there similar projects and schemes here in the mainland? If not, I believe there should be. The thought process is that the earlier this is done, the better, simply to help deal with issues in later life.

Another new programme is called the nurture programme. The Department for Education funds 31 nurture groups. Each group has received some £70,000 per year for running costs over the last five years. Funding of £80,000 per year has also been allocated to the education authority to provide support for these groups. Has there been an option to provide the nurture programme here in the mainland? The funding does not come close to providing for all needs. Given that schools ask parents for additional funding, over and above their school fees for arts and crafts, it is clear that not many have the ability to pay for specialised behavioural intervention at an early stage, which could be when it is most useful. That needs to be addressed.

To tackle exclusions, we must provide teaching support at all levels. There should be someone available to work with each child who is frustrated because they do not understand or have not yet grasped an idea. Support must not be targeted after a child has managed to work their way through the behavioural process, but at the very start of life in primary school—at the very beginning.

There is a Biblical saying that people reap what they sow. I believe that if we sow support and worth into children, they will grow and we, as a society, will reap the harvest of young adults able to deal with the pressures of life, thanks to a little support, feeling and help that shows they are worthy of attention.

10:33

[Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Bone, and I appreciate your calling me in this debate.

In March 2018, while having an unexpected and, as it turned out, well-timed break from Parliament, I was asked by the then Secretary of State for Education to undertake an independent review of school exclusion, to explore how headteachers use exclusion in practice and why some groups of pupils are more likely to be excluded than others. The review was published on 7 May 2019, a little over nine months ago. I will not repeat everything it contains—it is available in the House Library for all to see—but I will take the opportunity left in today’s debate to consider what progress has been made since its publication.

It is worth reminding ourselves that, despite the increase in recent years, permanent exclusion remains a relatively rare event. Just 0.1% of the 8 million children in schools in England were permanently excluded in 2016-17; that still means that an average of 40 children every day are permanently excluded, with an average of a further 2,000 pupils each day excluded for a fixed period. As we have heard, permanently excluding a child should always be a last resort, when nothing else will do. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) that it is right that headteachers maintain an unfettered discretion to remove children, as long as exclusion from school does not mean exclusion from education.

My review reinforced the need for headteachers to have exclusion available as an important tool that forms part of an effective approach to behaviour management. However, it also found that the variation in how exclusion is used goes beyond the influence of local context and that more can be done to ensure that exclusion is always used consistently, fairly and legally. That is important because outcomes for excluded children are often poor—in some circumstances, as we have heard, they can be catastrophic.

Exclusion should, and often does, help break a negative cycle of behaviour, better protect all children involved and lead to an enhanced prospect of educational and personal success and fulfilment. It should not be a trigger or contributor to a worsening trajectory of academic attainment, to the risk of becoming a victim or perpetrator of crime or to prospects of employment rather than prison.

We know from the analysis in my review that there are characteristics closely associated with exclusion: for example, children with special educational needs and those receiving support from social care. Indeed, the analysis showed that 78% of permanent exclusions were issued to pupils who either had SEN, were classified as “in need” or were eligible for free school meals. A large part of the solution must be to better identify, at an earlier stage, those children at risk of entering a revolving door of exclusions, so we can reduce avoidable and unnecessary use of such a sanction. I know that is what headteachers want, too.

That is why I recommended, and the Government endorsed, a practice improvement fund of sufficient value, longevity and reach to support local authorities and mainstream, special and alternative provision schools to work together to establish systems that identify children in need of support and deliver good, effective interventions for them. Such a system would better utilise the expertise and professionalism within alternative provision.

The Conservative party manifesto contained a welcome commitment to an alternative provision reform programme. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to think not just about the capital investment required to improve pupil referral units, which hon. Members have referred to, but about the workforce development required to ensure that the best and brightest are working in alternative provision. That expertise and specialism needs to be integrated into mainstream schools. The charity The Difference, referred to earlier, is undertaking such work; Kiran Gill and her team are already starting to have a strong impact.

I do not have time to go into detail on a number of issues, but I want to flag them with the Minister. They include fixed-term exclusions, the commitment to reduce the upper 45-day limit—the equivalent of a whole term—for which a child can be out of school and the pernicious practice off-rolling, which is illegal and on which Ofsted has borne down. It will be interesting to hear what further work will be done to make sure that it forms no part of our school system. There are also issues around managed moves—voluntary agreements between schools—that mean that a lot of children move around our school system, sometimes undetected; statutory guidance was recommended by my report.

I will briefly touch on the responsibility and accountability of schools. The oral statement made by the previous Secretary of State made it clear that the Government were going to fulfil that recommendation. Lord Nash, the then Lords Minister, was clear that he supported it, although more recently I noticed that Lord Agnew was talking about involving multi-academy trusts in providing alternative provision. It would be good to understand the current thinking on how we make schools better accountable for pupils who are excluded.

Part-academisation causes a problem for some of the recommendations made in my report when it comes to trying to define the role of local authorities. In hindsight, it would have been better, either by evolution or revolution, for us to have completed the academisation of the school system or decided that local authorities had a clear role within it. I tried to define that by saying that local authorities should be responsible for vulnerable children, such as children in care or children with special educational needs. That system could hold true in the future and help ensure that there is co-ordinated action around children at risk of exclusion.

I ask the Minister: when will work on the accountability of excluded children be stepped up and shared outside the Department for Education? When is the consultation on reducing the upper limit of fixed-term exclusions going to happen? How are the Government going to continue to tackle and bear down on off-rolling? How will the Minister help truly integrate alternative provision into the mainstream, so it acts as much as a preventer of exclusions as a recipient?

I know that the Minister is very committed to the programme. To that end, and now that I have been given a more lengthy opportunity to make myself useful on the Back Benches, I tentatively suggest to him that one way to achieve that, for our mutual benefit, would be to re-engage my services with the clear and specific purpose of helping to implement the review’s recommendations by way of a small delivery body. As I said, I know he is keen to make significant progress on this aspect of school life. It goes to the very heart of the Prime Minister’s welcome mission to spread opportunity across our country, with education a vital ingredient for achieving that.

10:40

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Bone, and to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), who is a fellow Manchester City fan. I am sure that he will be on the edge of his seat tonight for the quarter final of the European cup. Governments should walk the walk, not just talk the talk, and that was a clear offer to the Minister to begin implementing the Timpson review proposals on this subject.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) on securing the debate, her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime, and her powerful testimony about the five-year-old who was excluded. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) on her work with mothers in Newham and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who spoke about Jacob in particular. These are real human stories of lives that are affected day in, day out.

Our children must have access to high-quality full-time education. The vast majority of our schools want the best for their pupils. A small minority engage in poor practice in excluding and off-rolling. As we have heard, for the children such practices have a devastating, lifelong impact on their chances. I had to question my researcher yesterday when he pulled out the following statistic, and I publicly apologise to him. The Education Policy Institute found that there were 69,000 unexplained pupil exits from school in 2017 alone. When he put that fact in front of me, I had had to pull him up and say, “Are you sure?” That is nearly one in 10 of the school population. What is going on, Minister? The number has risen by 12% between 2014 and 2017.

We have a duty to protect and nurture the most vulnerable children in society, but under this Government’s regime vulnerable children, who are already at an increased risk of low educational outcomes, are systematically over-represented among those experiencing unexplained exits from school. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea pointed out that among black and ethnic minority children the rate of exclusion is 40 times greater. The Government need to recognise the complex causes of difficult behaviour in their policies and guidance.

Schools should be supported to focus on prevention and early intervention. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of teacher support. As a result of the culture that has been created and the huge funding cuts imposed, schools often struggle to focus enough resources on wrap-around care for vulnerable students, clearly resulting in an increase in exclusions. If we are to begin to address the school exclusion crisis, the Government must first reverse school cuts, which they are not doing.

The Government must also overhaul the assessment system. As the hon. Member for Eddisbury said, schools must use the exclusion mechanism consistently. The report of the APPG on knife crime, the EPI report, and my party’s manifesto all recommended that schools remain responsible for the pupils they off-roll. Schools must be accountable for the welfare and education outcomes of all pupils who attend, so that no children are lost to the system.

Schools must play an important part in turning around the growing number of exclusions, but the issue goes much wider, and cannot be solved by schools alone. Cuts in funding for local authority support, which has been mentioned, and for child mental health services are affecting the ability to support the children who are most in need. As Members of Parliament, our Friday constituency surgeries are now rammed with parents whose children are suffering in school and cannot access mental health support services. I do not think that any MP could deny that they are seeing an increase in their case load in this area. I hope that the Minister will come away from this informed and constructive debate, reprioritise, and commit to reducing the number of school exclusions in our system.

10:44

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) on securing the debate. In her excellent opening speech, she rightly said that we all agree on one thing—that every child in this country should have the benefit of a world-class education that prepares them for adult life and helps them to fulfil their potential, including children who have been excluded at some point during their school career.

The Government are committed to ensuring that all teachers are equipped to tackle the low-level disruption and the serious behavioural issues that compromise the safety and wellbeing of pupils and school staff. Ensuring that schools are safe and disciplined environments benefits all students. In 2018, the Department for Education’s school snapshot survey of teacher opinion found that 76% felt that behaviour was good or very good in their school. According to recent data from Ofsted, behaviour is good or outstanding in 85% of primary and 68% of secondary schools. Although behaviour in schools is broadly good, those figures show that there is still more to do to tackle the casual disruption that deprives children of up to 38 school days a year, according to Ofsted’s estimates, as well as the challenging behaviour that can result in permanent exclusion. Behaviour cultures are set from the top, and the Government are determined to support headteachers to build and maintain a culture of good behaviour in their schools. For example, we are investing £10 million in behaviour hubs, so that schools with a track record of effectively managing pupils’ behaviour can share that best practice with other schools. That programme will launch in September 2020 under the supervision of a team of expert advisors on behaviour management led by Tom Bennett.

Alongside that, we are reforming teacher training as part of the early career framework, and we have bolstered the behaviour management element in the core content for initial teacher training, so that all new teachers will be taught how to manage behaviour effectively on entry to the profession.

[Edward Timpson]

On teaching training, one of my recommendations was about trauma and attachment training, and really getting under the skin of why some children are struggling to meet the behaviour standards that we expect of all pupils within our schools. Will the Minister recommit to that recommendation, and explain how he intends to move it forward?

[Nick Gibb]

I will come to headteachers having to take into account the circumstances of pupils before they make a decision about exclusions, and to ensure that support is available for children who have special educational needs. I point out to Opposition Members that for the coming financial year we have increased spending on high needs education by 12%—an extra £780 million—which demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that special needs education is properly funded.

Visiting outstanding schools has shown me that a strong behaviour culture can help children who might otherwise struggle to engage in their education to succeed. Michaela Community School, a free school in Wembley to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) referred, is unapologetically strict in its standards of behaviour. The whole institution emits a sense of positivity and purpose quite unlike any other school that I have visited. In an area of significant deprivation, children are brimming with pride at the progress they are making.

At Reach Academy Feltham, behaviour is tracked on a transparent points-based system called “Payslip”, which gives rewards and privileges for good behaviour and deducts points for disruption. The school has a notably low number of fixed-term exclusions, and has not excluded a pupil permanently in the last two years.

[Sarah Jones]

The Minister is giving some good examples of individual schools, but does he accept our fundamental premise that the 70% increase in school exclusions, and some of the societal indicators of whether someone is more likely to be excluded, are really significant and need to be considered at national level, not just at the level of individual schools?

[Nick Gibb]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will come to exclusions in just a moment. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) pointed out, permanent exclusions are at 0.1% of pupil attendance in our school system.

The approach at Reach Academy Feltham indicates that when children know what is expected of them and how poor behaviour will be dealt with, they are less likely to display the persistent disruptive behaviour that is still the most common cause of exclusion. As my hon. Friend the Member reiterated, exclusion is an essential tool for headteachers to use when a pupil oversteps the bounds of what is acceptable in a school, either because of one serious incident or through persistent disruption. This Government therefore back, and will always back, headteachers who use exclusion to ensure they have good discipline in their schools, including permanent exclusion where it is used as a last resort. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said, speaking from his eight years of experience as a secondary school teacher, it is important to protect all pupils and their teachers from disruptive or violent behaviour in schools. He is right: all teachers have the right to teach and all children have the right to be taught in a safe and disciplined environment, without danger, intimidation or distraction.

It is important to put this debate on exclusion rates into perspective. As I said in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Croydon Central, the rate of permanent exclusions last year was 0.1%, and the longer-term trends show that the rate of permanent exclusions across all state primary, secondary and special schools has followed a downward trend. In 2006-07, the rate was 0.12%; by 2012-13, it had fallen to 0.06%. That rate has since risen, but it is still lower now than in 2006-07. That is because, as set out in the DFE’s exclusions guidance, we expect all schools to

“consider what extra support might be needed to identify and address the needs of pupils”

from groups more likely to be excluded

“in order to reduce their risk of exclusion.”

[Sarah Jones]

In 1997, the Labour Government inherited record numbers of permanent exclusions. The level in 1996-97 was about 12,000 a year, but by the time the Labour Government left office in 2010, exclusions had more than halved to 5,700, and crime fell over that same period. Does the Minister agree that where we have seen reductions in school exclusion, all kinds of other things follow? Where there have been increases in public spending in areas such as education, there have been reductions in school exclusion and in crime. Over the past 10 years, and over the past few years in particular, we have seen increases in violent crime and in school exclusion as funding for our public services has been reduced.

[Nick Gibb]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. Analysis has shown that excluded children have a higher risk of being a victim or perpetrator of crime, but although there is a strong correlation between those two issues, we have to be careful to not draw a simple causal link. The evidence does not suggest that exclusion causes children to be involved in crime; what it does suggest is that engagement in education is a strong protective factor for children who might otherwise be vulnerable to involvement in crime. It is therefore vital that schools and colleges enable all children to achieve, to belong, and to remain safe in education. That is the part played by the Department for Education in a wider cross-Government approach to tackle crime and serious violence. We will continue to work closely with other Departments, including the Home Office, to ensure that young people remain safe.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North pointed out, the focus must be on attendance, which research suggests is associated with risky behaviour linked to serious youth violence. Ministry of Justice research on the educational background of young knife-possession offenders showed that 83% had been persistently absent in at least one of the previous five years; overall, school attendance has improved significantly since 2010. That is why we have put such an emphasis on ensuring that children attend school.

Headteachers are best placed to judge what extra support may be needed in their school. Ofsted’s new inspection framework continues to include consideration of the reasons for exclusions and their rates and patterns, as well as any differences between pupil groups, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. Inspectors also consider evidence of off-rolling, and they are likely to judge a school to be inadequate if there is evidence that pupils have been removed from the school without a formal permanent exclusion, which my hon. Friend has also mentioned as a concern.

[James Murray]

The Minister has referred to the role that headteachers play in deciding what support they need to make sure exclusions are as low as possible. I reiterate my comment about Northolt High School in my constituency, where the headteacher has applied through the Excluded Initiative for charitable funding to help with some of its inclusion work. If that school is unsuccessful in its bid, would the Minister agree to meet its excellent headteacher and others who may be unsuccessful in their bids to discuss what other funding might be found to support their plans?

[Nick Gibb]

I am happy to meet the headteacher in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to discuss these issues; I always learn something in those meetings, and they can be extremely helpful. However, I point out that we are increasing high-needs funding by 12% and overall school funding by 5% this year alone, with a three-year settlement, and that school funding will rise to £52 billion by the end of that three-year settlement period.

Nothing I have said detracts from the fact that for the one child in 1,000 who is permanently excluded, their exclusion is a sign that something has gone seriously wrong. Without the right support, vulnerable children and young people can be left at risk of harm, including becoming involved in serious violence. We need to offer those children a fresh start—a school that can re-engage them with their education. For many excluded pupils, that will mean alternative provision. Good alternative provision offers excluded pupils a second chance to develop those core skills and readiness for adult life.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Gibb]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. Although 85% of state-funded alternative provision across the country is rated good or outstanding —an increase, by the way, from 73% in 2013—it remains the case that in some areas, permanently excluded pupils are not able to secure good-quality AP quickly, increasing the risk of them becoming caught up in knife crime. The report on knife crime produced by the all-party parliamentary group chaired by the hon. Member for Croydon Central emphasised the importance of full-time education for all children, including those vulnerable to exclusion. The hon. Lady referred to the fall in the number of pupil referral units between 2014 and 2017. The facts are that in 2014, there were 371 PRUs and alternative provision academies; in 2017, there were 351; and as of June 2019, there were 354. Eight alternative provision academies are in the pipeline to open before 2023.

Our focus must be on improving the availability of good-quality AP, so that when a child is excluded from school, that does not mean exclusion from good-quality education. Those children must have timely access to the support and education they need to help reduce risk, promote resilience, and enable them to re-engage with education and make good progress. We know that is possible, because there is excellent and innovative practice out there.

One great example is the parent and carer curriculum taught at the Pears Family School in Islington, which is an AP free school that opened its doors in 2014 and was found to be outstanding three years later. What is unusual about that school is that parents attend with their children several times a week, and in those sessions parents help pupils to make progress with their reading and are taught how best to support their children in their education. As a result, a high proportion of pupils are successfully re-integrated into mainstream school after a short placement. That model is currently being trialled by the Pears Family School and the Anna Freud Centre in three other AP settings across England. That is just one of the nine projects supported by our £4 million AP innovation fund, which we established to test the effectiveness of innovative approaches to improving alternative provision, an approach that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury supports.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon Central and to other hon. Members for having raised their concerns about this issue. I assure the hon. Lady and other Members that we take this issue very seriously and are addressing it, including by improving school behaviour and providing the right support to those at risk of exclusion.

[Edward Timpson]

I realise that we are about to finish, but I reiterate my offer to my right hon. Friend the Minister. He may need some time to consider the generosity of it, but in the meantime, would he agree to meet me to discuss the implementation of my review, and to write to me in advance of that meeting to answer the questions that I put?

[Nick Gibb]

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. He has raised the issue of accountability measures: expectations for pupils in AP have not been high enough in the past, and as part of our drive to improve quality across the AP sector, we will consider how we can better assess performance and strengthen accountability for pupils in AP. We will have more to say on that in due course.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I call Sarah Jones to wind up.

10:59

[Sarah Jones]

Very quickly—gosh! I was hoping to read out a couple of quotes from the hundreds of people who sent in amazing responses, but I do not have time, which is a great shame. I will pass them all to the Minister, and will publish them in some way. Children are more likely to be excluded if they are poor, have a special need, live in a deprived area or are black, and they are then more likely to go into crime. I thank the Minister for his response, but—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to cut short such an important debate, but time has beaten us.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Government Support for Business

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for business.

It is a pleasure to hold this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I declare an interest as a former member of the boards of Sky and Just Eat. I also recently visited the US on an all-party parliamentary group visit in the company of British-based space businesses.

The timing of the debate is auspicious. It falls in the narrow window of time during which we will decide how to make our way in the world, liberated from the chains and anchors of a protectionist trading bloc that has often poorly served the entrepreneurial and fast-growing nature of the businesses with which the United Kingdom is blessed. The good ship GB is tugging at its moorings with upward buoyancy and a new captain, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, standing astride its helm. Like my hon. Friend the Minister for Business and Industry, who is in his place, the Secretary of State has personal roots that stretch beyond these shores into the overseas markets that represent an outsized opportunity to create growth and employment for generations to come.

To a degree, we have the wind at our backs. Our exports are growing. We are the world’s 10th largest exporter, despite not ranking in the top 20 most populous countries. Our economy has grown for nine straight years. We are Europe’s leading destination for foreign direct investment, attracting more capital than France and Germany put together. But we must not be blind to the challenges. We are approaching the end of a decade-long recovery cycle. Globally, protectionist forces are in the ascendancy. We must not repeat the mistakes of growth built on the shaky foundations of too much debt or imported cheap labour.

Our natural advantages as a location to start, grow and run a business are immense: we have a world-class legal system with a strong respect for the rule of law; we sit between the Asian and American time zones; we have a flexible and educated workforce; and, of course, English is our own, but increasingly the world’s, language. In fact, 20% of the world’s population of 1.2 billion people now speak English. There are more English speakers in China than people in England. English is the official language of the European Union, the United Nations, the African Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The world is pregnant with opportunity, so what support does business need from the Government?

In my experience, business needs the Government to do three things: to facilitate access to markets for our products and services; to remove points of friction and barriers to doing business; and to provide the right fiscal framework. I spoke recently in the global Britain debate—as did you, Mr Bone—on facilitating access to markets. I talked about the opportunity to help the 90% of British firms that do not export to do so through better market access, more boots on the ground and having more of Her Majesty’s trade commissioners, and by expanding the export credit guarantee scheme and getting the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our aid policy to support British businesses.

Rather than revisit that point, I will turn to my second point about the important role that the Government can play in removing points of friction and knocking down barriers to doing business. The only way to truly level up the whole of the United Kingdom is with an enterprise-led renaissance. It is only business that will create the real jobs, opportunities and wealth that will make our future school and university leavers look askance at the idea of ever leaving our great northern cities to move south. Investment in infrastructure can provide the connective tissue, but it is business that fires the neurons between the nodes and provides a two-way flow of activity, motion, growth and employment.

There is no more productive and supportive infrastructure for small businesses than making gigabit broadband a reality by 2025, so I welcome the former Chancellor’s commitment of £5 billion for that purpose. We must rapidly turn plans into action and promises into reality. There is no time to waste, with just under 50 months to go and a huge amount of planning, procurement, construction and connection to be done. I strongly welcome the decision by West Sussex County Council last week to commit funding to projects under its full fibre programme and to shift that to the next phase of delivery for businesses across West Sussex.

My hon. Friend the Minister shares my enthusiasm for reducing the burden of regulation on small business. I do not know how familiar he is with the Better Regulation Executive within his Department, but this is the perfect time to give that initiative a much-needed boost. In a measure that is bound to prove popular with its members, he should send it on a round-the-world fact-finding trip to see the excellent work that is being done in New Zealand, Australia, the US, Singapore and, although it pains me to say it, France.

I congratulate the Minister on his new business support campaign to bring all the support together in one place at businesssupport.gov.uk, which is just the sort of practical measure that business needs. I encourage the Government to go further and to look again at a merger between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Companies House to give business a single online identity and a true one-stop shop.

There is also room for a modern industrial policy that is as much about knocking down barriers to scaling fast as it is about picking winners. It should focus on a small set of opportunities, each capable of spawning multibillion-pound industries, and making sure that when we get behind something, we align everyone behind it, from No. 10 down.

I commend the support that the Minister’s Department is already giving to genomics, artificial intelligence, space, fusion, zero-emission mobility and quantum computing. With the National Physical Laboratory, the Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst, the Faraday Institution and the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, it is no exaggeration to say that the UK is genuinely world-leading in each of those areas. UK-based companies are at the heart of the technology that the Solar Orbiter satellite probe, which blasted off into space last month, will carry all the way to the sun. When quantum physicists the world over want lasers with the purest light, they come here.

But others are catching up fast. It is equally true to say that the next 24 months are critical and will determine whether we succeed or the opportunity is lost to us forever. As the UK is such an attractive place to do business, we should be competitive, but have the self-confidence not to compete on always having the lowest rate of tax. As those of us who have lived the reality of business know, the burden of tax is about much more than the rate; it is about complexity, certainty and the approach to compliance.

There is an opportunity to unleash further potential from Britain’s businesses. The World Bank ranks us eighth in the world for ease of doing business, but only 27th for ease of paying taxes. How have we managed to create, but not to have solved, such complexity? To simplify it, we should tax an enterprise’s profits, not its inputs. To use a baking metaphor, we should tax the cake, not the raisins, flour and eggs.

There is an increasing recognition across the House that the current structure of business rates is a burden, particularly for small enterprises. It taxes businesses before they have had a chance to make their first pound of turnover, and penalises those that remain anchored in their local communities, such as on high streets in the small market towns of Arundel, Hurstpierpoint, Storrington and Petworth in my constituency. That has rightly been recognised by a series of reliefs for the smallest and other particular types of business, but I welcome the commitment to a fundamental review. I encourage the Minister to be a radical and uninhibited voice for business in that review, as I shall be. It is my belief that in the 21st century huge benefits would flow from unifying the income tax and national insurance regimes and from clarifying once and for all the ambiguities that lie around employment status. Perhaps the Minister will raise that with the Chancellor as well.

This is a critical subject at a critical time. We may never have such a window of opportunity again. The business leaders and entrepreneurs to whom I speak every day have placed their trust in us. We could be at the start of a new renaissance of British businesses seizing and leading in all the sectors that will define the economy in the 21st century; of knocking down barriers to enterprise and inspiring a new generation of entrepreneurs in every corner of the country and from every country of the globe to base themselves here; of rekindling the swashbuckling spirit and appetite for risk that saw our ancestors sail over the edge of the oceans in pursuit of profits from new markets. Or we could fail. We could be too timid in our ambition, too encumbered in our thinking and too slow to seize the opportunity. We must be the change we wish to see. Now is the time. The opportunities are tantalising and tangible, and they could be ours for the taking.

11:10

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

The high street is a passion of mine, given that I worked in retail in my home of North Norfolk before becoming an MP, and the high street is dying at an alarming rate. That is not new, but the decline is continuing year after year, and I see little in the way of a long-term strategy to deal with it. Although I welcome the changes to business rates and the Government’s £3.6 billion towns fund, I do not feel, sadly, that that is the finished answer. It is a temporary sticking plaster, when major structural change and reform is urgently required.

What we are seeing is a fundamental technological shift that has enabled shopping habits to alter through technology. I am not one to stand in the way, but I feel that the Government need to intervene to level up what has now become a completely unfair playing field. Bricks-and-mortar stores are seeing costs rising at an exponentially high rate, through wages, rent, pensions and energy, while their frontline sales growth continues to contract. By contrast, the internet giants buy in enormous bulk, lowering costs, and they do not have the same cost base as companies in what we term A1 retail space.

The high street not only employs millions of people; it also contributes major social and economic value to the country. Boarded up, vacant towns will have a major impact on our health and wellbeing. We should think of the isolation and loneliness that people suffer if they cannot go out to the shops and add that social value to their lives.

Internet sales over the years have rocketed, from around 5% when the data was first collected to around 20% of all retail sales now. That is an alarming rate of growth. Last July the proportion of all shops on the high street that were empty reached 10.3%, the highest level since January 2015, also relatively recent.

Every year we see major chains being lost. House of Fraser, for instance, was narrowly saved. Many go bust, and if they do not, the restructuring deals mean that hundreds of shops are closed instead. We witness thousands of job losses each year, particularly after Christmas, which is a crucial period for many retailers, which either sink or swim after that.

When an industry leader such as John Lewis, which is seen as the bellwether for the high street, is struggling and announcing further potential job losses, we have to recognise that structural change is required. John Lewis has the luxury of Waitrose, and cash from the supermarket division enables it to reinvest in the department stores. Most businesses on the high street do not have that. When John Lewis is struggling, we have to recognise how hard it must be.

All the indications are that footfall is continuing to decline on the high street, potentially at around 2% every single year. That is pretty depressing news. There is a declining customer base and shifting consumer habits; we have all witnessed that managed decline in our lifetimes. We must act now with some kind of intervention to change the playing field before we see communities and high streets really lost, and enormous unemployment off the back of that loss.

What are the suggestions for change? For starters, we need to consider some kind of internet sales tax, specifically on online shopping. Great Britain is renowned for its backbone of small shopkeepers. Some kind of online tax would give high street retailers, whose overheads are high and who employ local people, a better chance of being able to survive. Similarly, some kind of higher rate VAT-style tax should be considered. If we do nothing, the trends that are already happening in front of our eyes will continue. In a time when the Treasury is looking for ways to generate income, why not consider such changes? They are staring us in the face.

We absolutely must tax the internet giants that are contributing to the demise of our towns and cities by not paying their fair share of tax. Only when we do that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) has said, can we start to support the business rates reductions that we hugely welcome.

People say to me, “Why should the Government intervene? It is not their job to interfere in industry change; it is an evolution that we are seeing led by technology.” There is a reasonably simple answer to that: we have done it before. For instance, we have subsidised agriculture for many years, even though the payments system is now being altered. We now have a chance to put some kind of support mechanism in place while retail adjusts.

We are partly to blame for the situation, because we have not sorted out some of the hopelessly lax planning decisions and policies that we have had over the years. Unfair competition from out-of-town stores has created a further threat to our beleaguered traditional town centres. Had previous Governments applied a policy for every supermarket to be restricted to the sale of food items, our high streets would have had a remaining viable use. Furthermore, the modern practice of supermarkets developing instore bakeries, fish counters, butchery departments and so on has led, through that competition, to many smaller businesses on the high street disappearing, almost on a weekly basis—particularly greengrocers. Stringent planning policies must be put in place to curtail some of the supermarket growth that has led to the demise.

The decline of our high streets is a complex problem with a vast array of contributory factors, but the rise of the internet is at the very crux of it. We have to start tackling the problem now. To use our favourite term of the moment, we need to do some levelling-up of our beleaguered high streets.

11:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). The quality of Conservative Back-Bench Members is clearly incredibly high. If the subs bench is of this quality, it keeps Ministers on their toes to keep performing. That is one great outcome of the general election where the Prime Minister Boris Johnson led us to that wonderful victory.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs on securing this debate. I assure the House that the Government are committed to supporting business. Of course, seizing opportunities now that we have left the EU is absolutely crucial to that. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, we will soon have a new relationship with our European friends, inspired by our shared history and values. We will have recovered our economic and political independence, which will enable us to control our own laws and of course our own trade—that is clearly what he is so passionate about. We will be able to strike new trade deals with partners around the world, helping our small and large businesses to export and grow on the global stage.

Hon. Members do not need to take my word for it, or that of my hon. Friend. The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute ranks the UK as the second most entrepreneurial economy in Europe and the fourth most entrepreneurial in the world. We rank higher than all other G7 countries except Canada on the World Bank’s “starting a business” list, although I take on board my hon. Friend’s comments about the ease of taxation, where we do less well. As someone who has started and run my own business, I can say that the UK is a great place to do so.

As my hon. Friend points out, we should remove friction and barriers to doing business and support our companies and entrepreneurs to succeed. That is why no permission is required to establish a business in the United Kingdom, there are no minimum capital requirements, and new companies can be registered online within just 24 hours for as little as £12. That is why, as my hon. Friend mentioned, only last week we launched a new website, businesssupport.gov.uk, which brings together information, support and advice for small businesses. It is why programmes operated by the Government-owned British Business Bank are supporting firms with finance. As of December 2019, more than £7 billion has been delivered to support over 91,000 small businesses in the UK, including £730,000 to 76 entrepreneurs in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Given his energy and how assiduous he is, I am sure he will endeavour to meet each and every one of the 76 beneficiaries of that support.

We are working together across Government to create smoother processes and the best environments for business, and I am pleased to say that we have already gone a long way towards integrating the customer interface with Companies House and HMRC. The streamlined company registration service was launched in 2018; it allows new companies to incorporate and to register for PAYE and corporation tax through a single portal. As my hon. Friend rightly reminded us, there is undoubtedly more work to be done to reduce the burden of tax, but HMRC is making progress, including through establishing a new VAT registration service.

We have also committed to a fundamental review of the business rates system. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk quite rightly highlighted this issue, and challenge is important in this area. He is right to say that we need a holistic approach. The Treasury will provide more details about the business rates review in due course, but we have already provided reforms and reliefs to business rates worth £13 billion over the next five years. The Prime Minister has announced a towns fund of over £3.5 billion, including an accelerated £1 billion to support local areas in England to renew and reshape town centres and high streets. Through the taskforce giving expert advice on how to adapt and thrive, we are supporting local leaders and encouraging them to think differently about their high streets and to discover their unique selling points.

[Andrew Griffith]

May I contrast the Minister’s comprehensive programme of activity that is designed to improve the lot of small businesses in this country with the paucity of attendance on the Opposition Benches? Not a single member of any of the Opposition parties has deigned to grace us with their presence this morning.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

It is a shame and disappointing not to see any representation.

As part of my personal mission to improve the business environment, I am working across Government, including with the Department of Health and Social Care, on life sciences, which my hon. Friend described as one of the real future growth areas for jobs in our country, supporting collaboration across industry, Government and the NHS. With the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we are developing plans to level up the regions across our great nation, with business and the economy at the heart of our plans.

My hon. Friend made an astute point about the importance of regulation and broadband access to business. Our pioneering regulatory regime has made the UK the go-to location for science, research and innovation for decades, and we are absolutely committed to learning from international best practice. The Better Regulation Executive has recently invited the OECD to undertake a review of our international regulatory co-operation, which will be published soon, but my hon. Friend makes a good point about getting them on an aeroplane to visit places such as Singapore or, dare I say, just across the channel in France. We are also committed to delivering nationwide coverage of gigabit-capable networks as soon as possible. The Prime Minister made that promise during the election and it was delivered as soon as he was returned to office, with £5 billion of public funding to close the digital divide and ensure that rural areas such as my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs are not left behind.

As well as ensuring businesses across the country have the conditions they need to thrive, we are supporting sectors to ensure UK leadership in the industries of the future—as my hon. Friend points out, they are critical. Our study into tech competitiveness is due to report to Ministers this spring. We are supporting quantum with initiatives such as the quantum technologies challenge, providing up to £153 million of innovation funding for industry-led activities. The UK National Quantum Technologies Programme is set to invest over £1 billion of public and private investment over its lifetime.

We are also supporting life sciences, making a huge difference to people’s lives and to the NHS and how it delivers for people. Life sciences is an area of UK excellence and personal passion for me, with almost 6,000 businesses, 250,000 people employed and annual turnover of £74 billion. The Government have invested around £1 billion in a host of ambitious life sciences initiatives, with around a further £3 billion pledged by industry, including through our life sciences sector deal, which is part of the industrial strategy. That is one of 11 deals to drive productivity, innovation and growth across 10 sectors in the UK, from artificial intelligence to offshore wind, including a combined investment of £3 billion. Today we account for 36% of all offshore wind production on this planet, and we plan to go even further. That is this Government’s ambition, and that is what we will do.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk spoke about the high street. We are committed to conducting the review that I talked about earlier, but the reforms have already delivered the £13 billion that I mentioned. Although I will not deny that there are still challenges ahead for the high street and for small businesses, there are also fantastic opportunities. We talked about the towns fund, but local leaders need to be innovative. I see that in some local authorities that are returning people to live on our high streets. For far too long, retailers took on leases on our high street but left the upper parts vacant. We need to do much more to encourage people to live and work on our high streets in order to revive them; if people are living there, they will shop there and do many other things. I see it in my high street in Stratford-on-Avon, where we are beginning to think innovatively about how we deliver that—for example, with Shakespeare’s school, the King Edward VI School, where the great bard studied and learnt his craft. We have been looking at how we bring international students into some of the vacant properties to study over longer periods in the summer. Again, that would help the high street to deliver.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs for securing the debate, and I wish we had a lot longer to debate this issue. We need to ensure that—across our country, whether it is the Scottish Government or our Labour Opposition—we take business seriously. Ultimately, it is the lifeblood of the British economy.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Energy Efficiency Measures: Net Zero Buildings

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard in the Chair]

14:30

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered energy efficiency measures in buildings to achieve net zero.

I am very pleased—I would almost go so far as to say that it is serendipitous—that for the second time in succession you, my constituency neighbour, are chairing a Westminster Hall debate, Mr Pritchard. I hope that you and other hon. Members will find the subject relevant. It is an important debate for colleagues on both sides of the House who share my enthusiasm for exploring a variety of routes to reach net zero emissions as soon as possible—certainly by 2050. One is the groundbreaking Environment Bill, on which I had hoped to contribute in the Chamber. Several colleagues who would like to join this debate are in the main Chamber. Should some of them succeed in arriving before I sit down, I hope you will be liberal in your interpretation of the rules, Mr Pritchard, and allow them to chip in should they wish to catch your eye.

Another important feature of today is that it is the first day of Lent. I am joining colleagues here and individuals from around the country in making five green pledges for Lent: to cut down food waste, to use less single-use plastic, to make more zero-carbon journeys, to buy less new and so support local charity shops and the excellent repair hub in Ludlow, which is open on alternate Saturdays, and and to litter-pick. I urge the Minister to join me in following one or more of those pledges if he is observing Lent.

Yet another important feature of today is this debate, in which we highlight the vital need to reduce fossil fuel use in heating the buildings in which we live and work if we are to achieve net-zero Britain. I declare my interest as a property owner, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The debate is timely, as last month the consultation on minimum energy efficiency standards in the non-domestic private rental sector concluded, and earlier this month the future homes standard consultation ended. Given that the Budget is confirmed for next month and the comprehensive spending review is to take place later this year, this is the ideal time for the Government to set out their ambition to show global leadership in improving the energy efficiency of buildings in this country ahead of COP 26 in November.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. One important measure that we will need to adopt, including in Greater Manchester, is retrofitting our much older housing stock. That obviously costs money—he is right to allude to the opportunity that the Budget presents to discuss that need—but it also requires people with skills to undertake the retrofitting work. Does he agree that the Government’s new points-based immigration system causes concern about the construction sector’s ability to meet the needs of a very extensive retrofitting programme in Greater Manchester?

[Philip Dunne]

I absolutely agree that retrofitting existing housing stock is one of the biggest challenges we face in trying to reduce fossil fuel use in our buildings. Much of my speech relates to that, so I will go on to talk about it. I will not talk about immigration status, but the hon. Lady makes an important point when she says that we need sufficient skilled people to do the work right across the Government’s infrastructure programme. It does not apply exclusively to retrofitting homes, although that forms part of it. If the skilled tradesfolk I know in my constituency are anything to go by, most earn considerably in excess of the Government’s threshold requirements, so skilled tradespeople may well still be able to come here as they meet the requirements of the points system.

I am pleased that there has been some progress in building more efficient homes over the past 30 years. Overall emissions from homes have been reduced by about one fifth since 1990, despite the fact that there are approximately one quarter more homes now. That is ostensibly due to policies to improve boiler efficiency and basic insulation in the early 2000s, but progress seems to have stalled in recent years. Now is the time for this energetic and committed Minister, whom I am absolutely delighted to see retaining this brief, to make his mark by re-energising energy efficiency across the built environment in Britain.

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

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Minister’s energy and enthusiasm, because I want to ask about energy efficiency in social housing. I am sure he is aware that measures such as insulation, window glazing and low-carbon heating can be installed very easily and cheaply in larger buildings. There are some very good examples of local authorities building low-carbon social housing and slashing energy bills for tenants. In my constituency, Camden Council has been reducing carbon emissions in its housing stock, and it has used refurbishments such as Swiss Cottage library to make big energy savings and install solar panels. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it should be down to cash-strapped councils to carry out those innovations, or should the Minister and the Government be playing more of a part in investing properly in energy-efficient social housing?

[Philip Dunne]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised social housing, because I will touch on that in my remarks. I am sure the Minister will respond to that point, because there was a clear commitment in the manifesto on which we were just elected to provide funding for energy efficiency measures specifically in social and affordable housing. I think she will get some good news from the Minister when he responds to the debate.

What is the scale of the challenge? The built environment accounts for nearly 40% of national energy use and approximately one third of UK emissions, but progress in the decarbonisation of buildings has been limited. Enhancing the energy efficiency of the UK’s housing stock is therefore one of the critical steps in achieving our net zero target.

The future homes standard is focused on new builds. The Government have called on the industry to deliver a further 1 million new homes over the course of this Parliament, with a more ambitious target of achieving 300,000 new additions each year by the mid-2020s, so getting the regulations right will have a significant impact on the carbon footprint of millions of future homes. That is good news for the environment as we move to net zero, and for people who are fortunate enough to live in the more fuel-efficient buildings of the future. The homes we are building in this and subsequent Parliaments should last more than 100 years—way beyond the 2050 target date for net zero. We must ensure that the standard of homes being built now contributes to meeting that target. It would clearly be perverse and extremely costly to build homes now that require retrofitting to reduce emissions at a later stage. There should be plenty of opportunities from technical innovation in new build standards to incorporate in the future homes standard. I have no doubt that the Government, in their response to the consultation, will seek to address the challenges we face in ensuring homes become more energy efficient and encouraging new technology and innovation in house building. I would like to see them include the notion of embedded efficiency in the materials used for construction, and not just focus on the future annual running costs.

I have concerns about some elements of the proposals that were consulted on. There is, for example, the suggestion that the fabric energy efficiency standard will be removed, which would make it possible to build less energy-efficient properties and still get them to pass building regulations by fitting larger renewable energy systems; as a result, properties would become more expensive to heat, which could increase fuel poverty. Taken over a large enough area, additional renewable energy capacity might be needed away from the new housing, bringing additional cost. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.

The proposals explicitly remove local authorities’ right to set higher than minimum energy efficiency standards, as higher standards are likely to increase costs for home builders. That would restrict their ability to set their own ambitious targets to tackle climate change, with homes that are sustainable for the future, and remove the incentive for home builders to innovate and become market leaders in energy efficiency.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. East Suffolk Council has ambitious plans to impose higher energy efficiency standards on new build properties and would be disappointed by what it would see as a retrograde move in favour of developers, which already make large profits, by letting them off the hook on reducing carbon emissions.

[Philip Dunne]

I am grateful for that example. The Minister should be willing to show some flexibility and consider the councils that want to make progress, because it could have an impact on builders’ inclination to develop to a higher standard within a particular area. In my view, these matters should be determined by self-regulating local authorities.

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

There are ambitious councils, but is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned that, were regulations determined by councils, developers would be drawn to the councils that do not impose higher standards, where their profit margin would potentially be higher?

[Philip Dunne]

That has happened where different rates of affordable housing were implemented by councils across England—in Scotland too, I suspect—and developers were drawn to the areas with the lowest standards. I am sure that the Government, in response to the future homes standard consultation, will seek to raise standards across the board, but say that if any local authorities wish to go further and faster, that will be up to them. That is a risk that we should be able to take.

The Government can assess in detail examples of how we can achieve more effective building techniques and of the associated costs versus the energy efficiency savings. One example from my constituency is in the town of Much Wenlock. The social housing provider Connexus— it is well known to you, Mr Pritchard—built a housing project there two years ago to a passive house standard, which through designer materials manages heat loss and airflow. Thanks to that efficiency, the residents save an average of £665 a year in reduced fuel bills and energy use has fallen dramatically, to the point that many tenants say that they barely need to turn on their heating. However, construction of the project carried additional costs. Connexus estimates that it cost 29% extra to build to a passive house standard compared with standard building regulations. The Government could step in to provide further support mechanisms to social housing groups and local authorities to deliver a very high standard of energy efficiency. It will be interesting to see whether the response to the future homes standard addresses that.

I will focus on the scale of the challenge of making existing housing stock more energy efficient, which, as I mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), will by definition require the retrofitting of a huge number of properties. Some 29 million homes in the UK account for 20% of UK emissions. According to the Government’s live tables, of those homes, only 20 million have energy performance certificate ratings. The remaining 9 million homes are presumably owner-occupied and have not yet been required to undertake an EPC rating assessment.

Of the 20 million homes with an EPC rating, more are rated D than A, B and C combined. In total, almost 12.5 million dwellings are rated at bands D to G, compared with just 7.5 million rated A, B or C. That equates to 1.7 billion square metres of space that needs to be heated or cooled, which gives some indication of the scale of the challenge for the construction trade. In addition, non-domestic floor space energy performance certificates cover a further 688 million square metres in 935,000 properties that are used as non-domestic lodgements, with C and D the most common ratings.

The Committee on Climate Change published analysis about reaching net zero emissions by 2050 and recommended that by 2035, almost all replacement heating systems for existing homes must be low carbon or ready for hydrogen, so that the share of low-carbon heating increases from 4.5% now to 90% by 2050. In 2015, the Energy Technologies Institute estimated that 20,000 households per week—over a million per year—would need to be switched from the gas grid to low-carbon heating between 2025 and 2050 to meet the then 80% emissions reduction target in the event that non-fossil fuel gas alternatives have not been developed by then.

[Dr Poulter]

My right hon. friend spoke about the importance of retrofitting existing housing stock, which makes up about 85% of the homes that we are talking about. Does he agree that one suggestion that the Minister could take away is that over time, we could increase the duty on landlords to ensure that their properties become more energy efficient? A requirement for their properties to reach an energy efficiency rating of D, then C, and so on, would not only give landlords time to adapt, but would help tenants in some of the poorest households to save on fuel bills and would also help meet our carbon emissions targets.

[Philip Dunne]

I will touch on that briefly later in my remarks. My hon. Friend is right, and the Government have already introduced requirements for landlords to get to an E rating for all properties other than those in the categories of exemptions—those include listed buildings, properties where the tenant will not allow the adaptation because of its intrusive nature, or where the cost makes the adaptation disproportionate. Those requirements come into effect from 1 April for all new and existing tenancies, and there is talk of progressively increasing the requirement to a C rating, as my hon. Friend alluded to.

That is absolutely fine for new builds and is probably fine for properties in which the work relatively simple to do, but the big challenge is for existing, and particularly older, housing stock. The work is extremely intrusive and most tenants would not be able to occupy the building while it was being done, so it can only really happen when a tenancy comes to an end. Of course, that does not affect the 9 million-odd owner-occupied houses that do not already have a rating, so about a third of the housing stock is not rated at all. It will not apply to those properties unless the Government choose to change the rules and make owner-occupiers upgrade their buildings as well.

Going back to my thread about the scale of the challenge in adapting our existing housing stock, the current level of gas boiler sales is over 1 million a year, while heat pump sales are only around 20,000 a year. The capital cost of heat pumps, and the adaptations to existing homes to make them effective through under-floor heating, wall insulation and double glazing, make them a very expensive and disruptive solution for retrofitting homes.

The issue of ensuring the heat efficiency of older homes is particularly pronounced in rural areas, such as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), where there are more older homes and—certainly in my case, in Shropshire—a higher proportion of listed houses. Those houses are exempt from EPC requirements at present, and they may also not be connected to the traditional gas grid. For example, only 3% of all off-grid homes are at the required minimum EPC level identified by the clean growth strategy, but rural off-gas-grid homes make up 11% of all UK homes. I encourage the Government to engage with industry to tackle that issue in working to meet the 2050 target.

We clearly face a massive challenge in adapting existing housing stock to reduce emissions and become more efficient. Some 85% of UK homes are heated through carbon-emitting gas heating systems. As I have already indicated, the pace and scale of adaptation to achieve net zero by 2050 will require a dual strategy of making homes more energy efficient and decarbonising their heat sources. The Government have taken action, including through the minimum energy efficiency standards for the private rented sector that we have just been talking about, which came into force for new tenancies in 2019. Those standards require landlords to contribute up to £3,500 to improve rental properties with an EPC rating of either F or G.

However, as I shall elaborate shortly, the experience of my constituents in rural Shropshire—and my own as a landlord—is that that sum does not reflect the actual cost of retrofitting most homes, such as three-bedroomed, semi-detached cottages in rural areas. I was surprised to discover a 95% decline in the installation of domestic energy efficiency measures since 2012, meaning that the rate at which homes undertake energy improvements needs to increase by a factor of seven to meet the targets set out in the clean growth strategy.

The Government can and must go further. For example, the market for zero-carbon heating technologies is still immature and needs further Government support to develop. The renewable heat incentive is due to end next year, in March 2021, and I sincerely hope that its successor arrangements will be included in the Budget next month. I encourage Ministers to consider replacing the RHI with a capital grant or an improved green finance loans scheme. That would better reflect the main barrier to heat pump uptake—the high up-front cost of capital equipment and adaptations required, such as underfloor heating—rather than helping to reduce running costs as at present.

I also hope that the Government will consider the recommendation of the January 2020 report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission that VAT on housing, renovation and repair should be aligned with that on new build in order to stop disincentivising the reuse of existing buildings. The Government are in a position to take bold steps on retrofitting social housing. I welcome the Conservative manifesto commitment to invest £6.3 billion to improve the energy efficiency of 2.2 million disadvantaged homes, reducing their energy bills by as much as £750 a year over this Parliament.

Last year the financial scale of the challenge of improving existing housing stock was laid bare by the then Minister when answering a parliamentary question. It was made clear that the aspiration for as many homes as possible to be upgraded to EPC band C by 2035, as set out in the clean growth strategy, was estimated by the Department to have a total investment cost of £35 billion to £65 billion. If my maths is right and that applies to the 12.5 million properties at a D rating or worse, that would average between £2,500 and £5,200 per property. I have news for the Minister: from all our anecdotal evidence for the actual cost of conversion to get an EPC E rating to meet the private rental standards we have just been talking about, that seems to be an unrealistically low figure.

Whatever the figure, those are staggering sums. The good news is that, alongside doing the right thing for our environment, such investment could deliver substantial economic returns of up to £7.5 billion per year overall, and £275 per affected household per year by 2035. That would have a spin-off benefit of creating a large number of jobs to do the refitting work—estimated at 100,000—and saving the equivalent of six Hinkley Point C-sized power stations-worth of energy. There is therefore potential for a viable investment case to be made, but it needs to be credibly structured, which I am afraid some previous schemes were not.

The other significant challenge is that achieving net zero for our built environment will require improving not only domestic homes but non-domestic building stock across the country. The 2016 building energy efficiency survey identified some 1.83 million non-domestic premises in England and Wales, with vastly diverse usage and efficiencies, presenting a significant challenge in reducing emissions. In both rented and owner-occupied workplace buildings, five sectors accounted for 70% of total energy use—retail, storage, industrial, health and hospitality—and 67% of energy was used for activities that were not sector-specific, such as heating, hot water, lighting and the like. There is real scope to reduce energy consumption if the approach is correct.

The Government’s consultation set out two options outlining the energy cost implications of setting a target of achieving an EPC rating of B or, alternatively, an EPC rating of C. It is encouraging that the Government’s preferred approach seems to be to aim for the higher rating of EPC B, given the scale required to meet our emissions obligations, but that will of course require considerable investment, estimated at some £5 billion. The Government will need to reflect carefully on the delivery mechanisms used to stimulate the change required, not only using market mechanisms and support for new technologies, but enabling access for private sector businesses to green finance to facilitate adaptation.

The third area is the estate of the Government and public sector, which are of course substantial occupiers of buildings. The Government should lead by example to reduce emissions by tackling the energy efficiency of the Government estate. They have reduced emissions from the public building estate by 26% since 2009-10, but in reality that has been achieved mostly through a reduction in the estate rather than through improvements in efficiency.

Last year the Environmental Audit Committee took evidence on net zero government and learnt of interesting work going on through modern energy partners, a collaborative programme between the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Cabinet Office and Energy Systems Catapult, working alongside the Crown Commercial Service and private sector specialists. MEP was launched in early 2018 and was expected to complete in April 2021, at which point the Government may consider the programme for adoption as business as usual.

The Conservative manifesto for the December general election committed to a public sector decarbonisation scheme totalling £2.9 billion over a five-year period, and to funding insulation in hospitals and schools. I trust that will be confirmed in the comprehensive spending review later this year. I do not want to pre-empt the conclusions of the MEP, but I hope that the Government will consider incentivising public sector organisations to invest in their own renewable energy sources wherever possible, which will deliver lower energy bills to help recoup their costs, as well as further reducing emissions and supporting the UK’s growing renewable sector.

I will also touch on the validity of the EPC ratings regime, since they have become the main tool for Government and those looking to buy properties to analyse the supposed efficiency of a building. I am afraid that I have serious reservations about the EPC regime. Its current methodology can produce perverse ratings that will hamper significantly our efforts to decarbonise existing building stock. For example, high carbon-emitting heating options can achieve higher scores because they are cheaper to run, which is clearly contrary to the ambition but a hangover from the legacy purpose of EPCs—they were originally introduced to help reduce fuel poverty, whereas their current use is primarily to assess energy efficiency. Thus, biomass boilers and wood-burning stoves often score badly in EPCs, as the number of models included in the database is limited, default efficiencies are poor and fuel costs can be higher than for heating oil, even though they generate a fraction of the CO₂ emissions of oil, coal or gas per kilowatt-hour.

In assessing EPCs, the weighting of costly measures that can make a material difference in improving energy efficiency, such as replacing single-pane with double or even triple-glazed windows, can only score two points, in the case of double-glazed windows, since it may have a low impact on fuel costs. I encourage the Minister to take away this point and to engage with stakeholders on how the EPC ratings could be updated or amended to reflect better the ambition of meeting net zero by 2050.

In conclusion, I have five clear policy points, on which I hope the Minister will reflect. First, there is a need to strengthen the future homes standard, so that inefficient homes are not being built for longer than is necessary. Local authorities, as we have been discussing, should have the flexibility to set higher standards earlier if they so wish, to meet their own climate change targets. The Committee on Climate Change has called for the date to be moved forward to give certainty, and I hope the Minister will consider that.

Secondly, the Government must support zero-carbon heating beyond the end of the current renewable heat incentive schemes—beyond 2021—including financial support and targets for heat pumps and other zero- carbon heating options. Thirdly, householders should be incentivised to improve the efficiency of their homes, not only in fuel-poor homes. In rural constituencies such as mine, that will create jobs and keep heating bills lower, while cutting emissions and energy use, but Government support is required to get it moving.

Fourthly, in publicly owned buildings the Government have a real opportunity to lead by example. They should extend their manifesto commitment to improve schools and hospitals, by enabling public sector bodies to invest in on-site renewable energy sources. That would create jobs, reduce bills and emissions, and show the Government’s commitment to their world-leading ambition in cutting emissions. My final ask is that the Minister commit to a review of the EPC system, which has moved on from its original purpose and can create perverse anomalies, particularly for older, rural homes.

I welcome the Government’s future homes standard consultation and their clear target to reach net zero by 2050, with all the steps that will inevitably entail. I hope the Minister will reflect on the concerns of various organisations that will have submitted evidence through the consultation, and Members’ comments today, to ensure that the real opportunity to bring lasting change to the way we construct, insulate and heat our buildings does not slip through our fingers.

15:00

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship today, Mr Pritchard. I listened to the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) with the greatest of interest, not least because I come from one of the coldest parts—if not the coldest part—of the United Kingdom. There is a village called Altnaharra in Sutherland, which is a great favourite of Jeremy Paxman—he goes to catch salmon there. People also have a very good chance of seeing a golden eagle there. However, every year Altanarra is the coldest place in the United Kingdom.

I have been increasingly worried by something that all right hon. and hon. Members know about: the terrible thought of a pensioner deciding to switch off their heating because they simply cannot afford it. I want to put on the record my gratitude to Councillor Richard Gale, among other colleagues, who has helped to spearhead the issue that the right hon. Gentleman spoke about in East Sutherland and the wider highlands and islands. Although we generate an enormous amount of renewable energy from our onshore and offshore wind farms, in actual fact many of my constituents have heating bills they simply cannot afford.

In absolute fairness to the Scottish Government, I want to put on the record my thanks to them; I may sometimes take a pot shot at them, but they have put tackling fuel poverty at the top of their agenda. Credit should be given where it is due. My wife comes from one of the six counties of the UK part of Ireland—let me get my history right—and I understand that similar moves are being made at Stormont, which we should be grateful for.

In my brief contribution, I will make a couple of suggestions. I live in a particularly cold, energy inefficient house, so I know all about keeping a house warm. Hon. Members will probably be shocked to know that I know all about lighting fires and trying to stay warm and trying to haul ancient shutters shut and getting them to stay shut. Oddly enough, old-fashioned wooden shutters were quite good at energy insulation, although I am not advocating that we step back to 18th or early 19th-century building construction. The right hon. Gentleman talked about retrofitting; that is the problem we face in the highlands. Notwithstanding the good measures undertaken by the Scottish Government, in some ways we were slightly better at these things 25 years ago than we are today.

That leads me to my next point. A long time ago, when I was a councillor in the 1980s and 1990s, home improvements could be undertaken in several ways. The Scottish Office—then part of the UK Government, not today’s Scottish Government—would allocate two forms of capital funding to councils, known as block A and block B. Block A was used to build, renovate or do up houses in the public rented sector—that is where council houses were built. Block B was for renovating or repairing properties in poor condition that should be lived in. That included spaces above shops, because there was a tendency for many living spaces above shops not to be used in quite the way they had been when the shopkeeper lived there, as a certain former Prime Minister of this country did.

The system worked extremely well; my own Ross and Cromarty District Council was able to say, “Right, we’ll take a particular part of a village in the highlands, and target the whole of one street where there are privately owned cottages and people do not have proper insulation.” We would call it something like a care and repair scheme, which worked extremely well. There was a dividing line between the rented and not rented sector—block A and block B—but all that was capital; it was borrowing as opposed to revenue, so it was easier for the Scottish Government, and ultimately the Treasury, to use the public sector borrowing requirement and the Public Works Loan Board to get the cheapest money in town and direct it at the problems that had to be sorted out.

Today, we know for a fact that money has never been cheaper, so in some ways it is easier for the Treasury to borrow a large amount of money at a cheap rate and direct it straight at what it wants to achieve, be that building ships or whatever. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it should be relatively easy for the UK Government to direct a chunk of money at housing, given that it does not come off the revenue budget—in other words, they do not have to raise taxes to spend. They will have to cover the borrowing costs, yes, but they are very cheap. That is one suggestion worth thinking about, as it worked well in the past. Perhaps we will hear more detail about what the Scottish Government do from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown)—he will know better than I do. The Scottish Government are doing their best.

My final point, because this is a brief contribution, is that I have spoken in this place about trying to encourage people, for carbon reasons, to buy and use electric cars. However, even for those with lots of power points for charging, electric cars are expensive things to buy. A lot of people are put off by the cost. I have suggested some kind of tax break for people who buy an electric car, taken off their pay-as-you-earn code. That might be a constructive way of looking at it. To encourage householders to think about making their homes highly efficient, it might be worth making it work for them to do the work, as well as there being Government assistance. That would address the point that right hon. and hon. Members made about heat pumps. Heat pumps work, but they are fiendishly expensive to put in, and the disruption is something else. But if the goal for the house owner at the end is worth it, the game is worth the candle—I think that is the right expression.

This is an enormous issue for me, because it is so dashed cold up in my part of the world. I wish it was not so. Who knows? Climate change may have us all growing grapes on the straths of Sutherland and Caithness in the years to come, but I doubt it.

15:08

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his comprehensive assessment of the issue.

I wish to make a couple of points during my equally short contribution. It is worth reflecting that building regulations first included energy conservation as long ago as 1972. Since then, year after year, those regulations have been tightened up to achieve much greater energy conservation than before. The problem is that the last substantial upgrade of the regulations to achieve a very good energy conservation outcome was in 2013; there has been no substantial upgrade since that date. That is worrying. Minister, when will the building regulations next be upgraded and what will that include?

In 2015, the long-standing policy of the Cameron Government to achieve zero carbon for new homes was abruptly cancelled. That may seem like a little while ago, but it characterises a lot of the discussion about this issue. I hope the Minister can comment on that in his summing up.

The issue came up during the election campaign. I sat with a company that operates in the sector, in a village where a huge development is taking place. We worked out together how much it would cost to make the houses zero carbon as they were being built, from scratch. We calculated that the total increase in cost would be about £5,000; the total cost of retrofitting the houses was about £25,000. That is a huge difference, and retrofitting also comes with enormous problems—we have already heard about some. The firm I met specialises in alternative heating. Everybody wants a ground pump to be put in to get the best approach to heating, but that is not possible in many houses and is not the best solution. Other options, such as biomass boilers, should be considered, as we move forward.

We need to address this area in more detail, because there are significant opportunities for the UK. Residential and commercial buildings account for 60% of electricity consumption in the world today—a phenomenal amount. I have two points to make about that. First, there has been a lot of talk about increasing the ability of district councils to introduce regulations on net zero carbon. That is missing a trick. I invented neighbourhood plans that have gone out of their way to give communities the freedom to decide lots of important things about where housing should go. They have to work within a strategic framework that is set by the district council, but many neighbourhood plans are trying to achieve more than the district council wants. This is an opportunity to give them the freedom to take that forward.

My second point is about developing countries. Whether you support Brexit or not, we are a global player and we need to ensure that what we do helps in developing countries. Many such countries have a housing crisis—we must recognise that. Whatever we do there will have to involve sophisticated commercial financial options. Our international aid budget should reflect that, as well as the opportunities for British companies; many of the existing programmes will not sit very easily within that framework. Throughout my time as trade envoy to Nigeria, I have tried to encourage solar energy there, but the translation of that into better housing is quite a long way away. There is a lot that we can do to help that process.

The building in Africa that stands out as the best net zero example of its type is the Belgian embassy being built in Morocco. When that is the situation in a developing continent, we have to ask why, and what we can do about it.

15:14

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) on securing this debate in Westminster Hall today and on his election as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. We look forward to many contributions under his chairmanship.

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). In debates in Westminster Hall, he and I often sit on opposite sides of the Chamber but say the same things. That will be the case again today, which is very positive.

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on healthy homes and buildings, which over the last few years has conducted a number of inquiries and made recommendations, but everyone, including councils, the Government, builders and householders, has a role to play in achieving energy efficiency in buildings. Many of us have taken the environment for granted for too long. My firm desire is that my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren will have an opportunity to enjoy the beautiful countryside that I have so enjoyed throughout my life. For that to happen, we have to make changes that are positive, constructive and mark the way forward. I sincerely believe that we have to be good caretakers of the land that God has granted us and that we hold in trust for future generations.

We must also all be conscious that a massive part of addressing these issues is to use our Commonwealth, diplomatic and trading partnerships to encourage big industrial countries to take decisions that reduce the size of their carbon footprint. We must be ambitious in our desire to achieve that, but we must always bring people along with us in our attempts to make a difference to this wonderful world that we live in. The Committee on Climate Change has highlighted that Northern Ireland contributed 4% of UK carbon emissions in 2016. That is a small percentage, but it does not mean that we do not have to do our bit and make sure that reductions happen. We have a key role to play in meeting the UK’s legislated emissions reduction targets and obligations under the Paris agreement. With a reconstituted Northern Ireland Assembly up and running, and functioning, there will naturally be a more formalised approach to how we can reduce our emissions in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The Minister is always very assiduous in replying to comments and questions, so could I ask him—I probably know the answer, but for the record—what discussions has he had with the Northern Ireland Assembly at this early stage to see how we meet the targets?

I was interested to learn that the built environment contributes around 40% of the UK’s total carbon footprint. Almost half of that comes from energy used in buildings, for example plug loads and cooking, and infrastructure, such as roads and railways, and has nothing to do with the functional operation. Newly constructed buildings are more energy efficient, but 80% of the buildings we will have in 2050 have already been built, so a major priority is decarbonising our existing stock, the cost of which has been mentioned by previous speakers.

The UK Green Construction Board said:

“Direct emissions from fuel use in existing buildings rose for the second year running in 2016, mainly due to heating. Heating alone results in 10% of the nation’s carbon footprint and homes are more significant than all other building types put together. Decarbonising our heat supply is one of the big policy challenges ahead. Another major challenge is the carbon embodied through construction. Annual embodied emissions alone are currently higher than the GCB’s target for total built environment emissions by 2050.”

In a very interesting paper, the Royal Institute of British Architects notes:

“The built environment is responsible for around 40% of global carbon emissions and architects have a significant role to play in reducing UK greenhouse gas emissions to net zero.”

RIBA welcomes the commitments and the direction of travel signified by many of the measures proposed in recent Government consultations. It sets out six points, the first of which relates to using the metric of “operational energy”, or energy used at the meter. Operational energy is the actual energy use of a building, and includes both regulated and unregulated energy sources. We must look at what happens in homes. Energy performance certificates are not the most accurate measure of energy efficiency, as they only predict for regulated energy sources, including heating and lighting, not unregulated ones, including personal devices such as computers, refrigerators and coffee machines. The document suggests that operational energy should be validated through the post-occupancy evaluation at the completion of a project. POE is essential to ensure that a home is working as it was intended, which is important.

The second point is a recommendation of actual energy performance targets for buildings in line with the RIBA 2030 climate challenge. The current process essentially benefits buildings of poor shape and design, and we have to change that, because if we do not we shall have problems. Setting actual operational energy targets would encourage architects, developers and homeowners to be innovative and would reward good design based on form, orientation and fabric performance, rather than simply calculating an emissions reduction based on a generic building.

Thirdly, RIBA proposes introducing embodied carbon targets for buildings, in line with the 2030 climate challenge, and suggests giving encouragement for embodied carbon to be calculated in accordance with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors whole-life carbon assessment for the built environment. Again, those are positive measures, and the Minister is probably well aware of those recommendations and suggestions, but it is important to have them on the record. RIBA also suggests promoting the use of post-occupancy evaluations, pointing out that a POE gives the building owner or tenant, the architect and the builder a chance to understand any areas that are not performing as expected, and to make changes. That is especially useful for energy efficiency.

The fifth recommendation is to close the loopholes in the transitional arrangements for the future homes standard. The document refers to evidence that housing developments are being built to energy efficiency requirements that have been superseded more than twice, as a result of changes to part L of the building regulations. It seems that the requirements may have improved, but people have not caught up with that. That is not acceptable and it will result in housing developments being built to different energy efficiency requirements. We need them to be built to the same requirements, so that the same process goes forward. RIBA suggests that where “substantial and meaningful work” such as physical construction work has commenced on an individual building within a reasonable period, the transitional arrangements should apply to that building—but not to buildings on which some building work has not commenced. It further suggests that a reasonable period within which work should have started is 12 months.

The last point is about introducing display energy certificates. As I have mentioned, EPCs are not an appropriate measure of energy efficiency. The use of the actual energy performance as a measure of energy efficiency through the implementation of a DEC programme would be more effective. That approach has been used in New York and Australia. Both disclose operational energy use for all buildings and in the latter case it has helped to reduce operational energy by some 70%.

There are things happening elsewhere that we should try to make progress with. The climate emergency demands urgent action and leadership by architects and the wider construction industry. It is important to reduce operational energy demand by at least 75%, and embodied carbon by at least 50% to 70%, before UK offsetting; and to reduce potable water use by at least 40%, as well as achieving all core health and wellbeing targets.

It is clear that there is a role in construction to help us to achieve our carbon goal. As with anything else of worth, what we want must be paid for in some way. There is no doubt that scaling back funding and incentives in the construction industry has meant that we are not achieving what we could achieve. We must focus our energy, attention and finances on encouragement to big constructors and small firms alike. It is important to make lasting change to the mindset of the construction industry to ensure that we meet and keep to targets and that we are an example to the rest of the world of how carbon-zero building can be achieved in an affordable and practical way.

I am sure that we are all aware of the story where a young boy of five or six years old on the shore is picking up starfish and a man is watching his antics. The boy picks up a starfish, puts it in his bucket and takes it out to sea. The guy looks at him and says, “Young man, you’re wasting your time. You can’t save them all,” and he answers, “But I can save this one.” We can only play a small part by what we do. We cannot change the world by ourselves, but we can bring about change if we do what we can at home. We cannot reduce the world’s emissions by our own efforts, but we can reduce the emissions in our reach and encourage other nations across the world to do the same.

15:25

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

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Like everyone else, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) on bringing forward the debate. I also congratulate him on his new role. He is clearly passionate about the environment. I wish him well in holding the Government to account, which I am sure is more fun than being an actual Minister. It was interesting that he started with five green pledges for Lent. Similar to the saying about puppies, those pledges could be for life and not just Lent. We can reflect on that.

The right hon. Gentleman set the scene very well, including the scale of the issue that faces us in achieving net zero for domestic buildings, and fact that the decline in emissions has stalled in recent years. It certainly struck home to me that about 20 million of 29 million homes have an EPC rating, and of those more are rated D than A, B and C combined, although I suggest that those figures are not reflected across the UK. I will give some statistics later.

I agree completely about the need to decarbonise our heating system. The bigger picture there goes hand in hand with the need for the UK Government to invest in carbon capture and storage and hydrogen production, with projects such as the Acorn project up in Peterhead. The right hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted the big challenge of rural off-gas-grid homes. That is a big challenge for the Government and I, too, look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that and on the issues about the renewable heat incentive coming to an end. Looking at the bigger picture, that ties in with the loss of the feed-in tariffs for solar. There is now a 20% VAT uplift in solar. All those measures are prohibiting energy efficiency measures that would reduce energy demand and therefore the carbon emissions from homes.

There was a good statistic about the fact that if we achieve the EPC band C overall, that would be the equivalent of the removal of six Hinkley Point C power stations. We should bear in mind that the Hinkley Point C capital cost alone is about £22 billion. That shows how much money could be saved with direct Government investment to bring the entire housing stock up to spec. In the long run it provide value for money. The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the critical issue with the EPC regime, and favouring lower costs over carbon emissions. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) touched on that as well, so it is clearly something that needs to be resolved. It would be good to hear what the Minister says on that and the five recommendations that were made.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) spoke about lighting fires, which took me back to my childhood when we had coal fires in the house and there would be ice on the inside of the single-pane windows when I got up. There is one blessing: things have moved on in the last 30 to 40 years. We also heard from the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) on the big issue of cancelling the zero-carbon homes initiative and the fact that retrofitting will cost five times the original capital outlay. That again shows that changing decisions costs more money in the long run. The Government should look at the bigger picture. Of course, no debate would be complete without the hon. Member for Strangford giving us the Northern Ireland view within the UK context. He made some critical points.

It really is a no-brainer that greater energy efficiency measures can only assist in reducing carbon emissions at the point of use, as well as generation demand, further reducing overall carbon emissions. Energy efficiency can help to reduce fuel poverty and can be part of the green industrial revolution, creating additional jobs in various insulation techniques. Obviously, it is needed to get to our net zero target by 2050, so I must ask why the UK Government are not doing more in that field.

One simple positive measure that the UK Government could pursue is removing the 20% tax threshold on energy efficiency home improvements. Independent research by the Federation of Master Builders demonstrates that cutting VAT on energy efficiency improvements will not only improve the housing stock and generate thousands of jobs but significantly boost the UK economy by bringing empty properties back into use and reducing the incidence of fuel poverty. I suspect that it is too much to hope for that measure to be included in next month’s Budget, but the Minister should be talking about it with Treasury colleagues.

Others Members touched, implicitly or directly, on the fact that direct Government investment in energy efficiency is crucial. The UK Government need to follow the lead of the Scottish Government. Now, I would say that, but organisations in the sector say it as well. The energy companies say it, as do many third sector organisations. The BEIS Committee said it in its 2019 report, “Energy efficiency: building towards net zero”, as did the Committee on Climate Change in its 2019 progress report to Parliament, titled “Reducing UK Emissions”. The BEIS Committee report stated:

“We note that Scotland’s investment of four times more than England cannot be explained by a less efficient dwelling stock: the latest housing survey data demonstrates that homes in Scotland actually have greater insulation levels than in England. For example, in 2017, 49 per cent of homes in England had insulated walls, compared to 60 per cent of homes in Scotland… Scotland has made much faster progress in improving the energy efficiency of its fuel poor homes than England, where in some bands, progress has stalled.”

It was good to hear the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross acknowledge the work of the Scottish Government on that.

Statistics show Scotland’s relative success: 44% of Scottish homes were rated as EPC band C or better in 2018, compared with just 34% in England, and only 20% in Wales. In Scotland, the proportion of properties in the lowest EPC bands of E, F and G has more than halved since 2010, going from 27% to 12%. In England the figure is higher, at 16%, and in Wales it is 20%—although the Scottish figure is measured slightly differently. It is therefore little wonder that the BEIS Committee concluded:

“The Government appears indifferent towards how public per capita spend in household energy efficiency in England compares to other parts of the UK”

and

“the governments of the devolved nations treat energy efficiency as a much higher priority than the UK Government.”

The Committee’s description of the UK Government as “indifferent” is particularly damning. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that, and how the Government will address it going forward.

The Committee on Climate Change confirmed that policies are not currently in place to deliver the UK Government’s ambition to improve all homes to at least EPC band C. The CCC stated that regulations for the private rented sector prioritise costs for landlords over the costs for tenants to operate their heating systems, and that minimum standards for social housing are required. It then observed that the Scottish Government, by contrast, are demonstrating how an effective policy package for energy efficiency improvements in buildings might be delivered by setting out a comprehensive framework of standards, backed by legislation. That legislation includes private rented sector regulations, phased to set a date for when new tenancies have to comply, and a backstop date for all private rented properties. The Scottish Government also set a higher cost that landlords in the private sector might have to shoulder. There are proposals for all owner-occupiers to be required to meet EPC band C by 2040, with incentives to try to do it by 2030. In the social rented sector, the revised standard published in June 2019 requires all social housing to meet EPC band B by the end of 2032, and sets a minimum floor of EPC band D from 2025, below which no social house can be re-let.

It is time for the UK Government to follow suit and put in place a proper framework covering the private rented sector, social housing minimum standards and owner-occupiers, as the Scottish Government have. The Scottish Government backed those measures up by spending from 2009 to 2021 what is predicted to be more than £1 billion, and £145 million this year. If the Government invest in a long-term energy efficiency investment programme, it will create jobs, allow the programme to be delivered at best value, avoiding spikes in cost, and be part of the green industrial revolution.

Some 27 million homes need their heating systems decarbonised, so it is crucial that they are as energy efficient as possible. The Government have one live scheme for home insulation measures: the energy company obligation scheme. Yet the Committee on Fuel Poverty states that those measures do not target the right people, so that needs to be reviewed as well.

Another spin-off of energy efficiency measures can be the regeneration of social housing stock. We tend to think of energy efficiency measures as internal insulation, but they include external cladding. When external cladding is installed and re-rendered it can transform the appearance of housing schemes—I have seen that first hand in my local authority, where I was formerly a councillor.

The BEIS Committee also said in its report that the UK Government must not only match Scottish levels of funding but create a joined-up strategy, and that the

“weight of stakeholder evidence suggests that Scotland designating energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority has helped to improve its policy impact, making energy efficiency policy better designed and funded, longer-term, as well as more comprehensively governed and targeted, than in England.”

Hopefully the Minister will acknowledge that, and step up to the plate by following suit.

15:36

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) not only on securing this important debate, but on his excellent and comprehensive opening remarks, which set the scene very well. I also congratulate all other Members on their contributions, because the tone of the debate has rightly been very constructive—no pun intended.

Climate change is the biggest challenge facing us all, and as politicians we must rise to that challenge. I was reminded of that a couple of weeks ago, when speaking at Newcastle’s youth climate strike. The concern of the young speakers about the climate emergency was matched only by their lack of confidence in politicians’ ability to address it. I think, and hope, that we can prove that we have the ability to make real change and achieve net zero in time to save the planet. Today’s debate has touched on several issues that contribute to that objective, associated with energy efficiency.

Insulating our homes to a high standard is essential to tackling the climate emergency, and will ensure that we tackle the fuel poverty crisis in our country—a national scandal, with 10,000 people tragically having died last year because their homes were too cold. At the last election Labour put forward proposals to deliver warm homes for all, with the largest upgrade of UK housing since post-war reconstruction. That upgrade would have cut more than £400 off the average bill, thereby eradicating the vast majority of fuel poverty; reduced childhood asthma by more than half a million cases; and cut the UK’s emissions by 10%. The programme would have created 250,000 skilled construction jobs through the 2020s. Through a climate apprenticeship programme, the training and skills needed to access those jobs would have been available to all.

Labour will not have the opportunity to deliver those policies in this Parliament, but I urge cross-party co-operation on meeting our energy objectives. If we are serious about tackling climate change and fuel poverty, nothing less than a nationwide, large-scale programme will do. I was impressed by the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on how to achieve such a large-scale building programme, and the incentives in his constituency to succeed in it.

Unfortunately, since the election, details about how the Government will achieve their targets for increasing the energy efficiency of homes, schools, businesses and public buildings have been somewhat scant. I agree absolutely with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) that the measures in the clean growth strategy are not enough to ensure that we meet carbon emissions targets and move towards a carbon-neutral society.

Unfortunately, the Government’s pledge to invest £9.2 billion in improving the energy efficiency of homes, schools and hospitals does not go far enough. There is no real ambition about ensuring that homes are insulated. Plans introduced in 2018 to insulate 17,000 solid-wall homes are noble, but at that rate it would take 400 years to insulate all 4 million such homes in the UK. In its recent report, “Engineering priorities for delivering net-zero”, the Institution of Engineering and Technology—I declare an interest as a fellow of that institution—set out some of the challenges and emphasised that 80% of the homes we will be living in by 2050 have already been built, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) stated.

Current proposals to ensure carbon neutrality in new build homes through the future homes standard do not go far enough. They would eventually come into force in 2025, nine years later than previous plans were set to be implemented before they were scrapped in 2015. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) did well to emphasise the importance of building regulations and the retrograde nature of that measure.

MawsonKerr, an architecture firm in my constituency, raised with me a number of concerns that were also expressed by the London Energy Transformation Initiative, a voluntary network of more than 1,000 built environment professionals, including engineers and architects. It stated:

“The proposals will allow new homes to be built to lower energy efficiency standards than homes built today. This is a depressing step backwards rather than the huge leap forwards we need to take in the face of the climate emergency.”

Among other things, it criticises the fact that the future homes standard takes away local authorities’ powers to demand greater energy efficiency; that it targets not zero-carbon emissions but a reduction in carbon emissions, compared with the current part L of the building standards; that it does not prioritise energy efficiency but relies instead on bolt-on technologies to reduce emissions; that it fails to address fuel poverty or occupant health; that it makes no requirement for post-occupancy monitoring; and, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, that it does not consider embodied carbon—the carbon emissions related to building the house.

The Government’s own Committee on Climate Change has said that the proposals do not go far enough to protect against overheating, flooding and water shortages. We have been reminded very effectively in the past few weeks of the importance of protecting against flooding.

We must be ambitious when it comes to any aspect of reducing our energy consumption. With the UK set to host COP 26 in Glasgow later this year, we have a chance not only to be ambitious for our own country, but to be an example of ambitious climate policy around the world. We need to look at how we can begin to move towards making buildings more energy efficient. As we heard, buildings account for 37% of UK carbon emissions. Ensuring that homes, the largest contributor to that figure, operate at their peak must be a priority. Ensuring that proper insulation is installed in all homes—particularly the homes of those with low incomes—would have many beneficial consequences. Not only does installing insulation increase the overall energy efficiency of homes and reduce their carbon output, but it reduces the pressures of high energy bills.

A report by Verco and Cambridge Econometrics found that bringing all low-income households up to high energy efficiency standards would not only tackle fuel poverty but generate a return of £3.20 for every £1 invested by the Government, improve relative GDP by 0.6% by 2030, and increase employment by up to 108,000 jobs a year between 2020 and 2030. Those are the concrete advantages of such a policy.

Another way to achieve greater energy efficiency is to bring all homes in the UK up to EPC band C. As we heard, to achieve that we need to look at upgrading millions of owner-occupied homes to make them more energy efficient. In addition, landlords should not be able to let out properties that are below acceptable energy efficiency levels. The remedy for that is enforcement at local level, but those standards have proven difficult to enforce given the strain on local authority resources.

Policies should be in place to ensure that landlords are given the assistance they require, above a certain threshold, to increase the energy efficiency of their property to the new standard. At present, the amount a landlord should spend on uplifting to band E is £2,500. If that were increased to £5,000, and a complementary system of grants were introduced to further uplift a property’s banding, the number of highly energy efficient properties in the rental market would increase. We must also normalise the idea that landlords should not be permitted to let properties that do not meet minimum energy efficiency requirements, and give local authorities the powers and funding necessary to follow up on that.

In conclusion, I have five questions for the Minister. Will he bring forward measures that focus on energy efficiency, which is vital not only to tackle the climate emergency but to reduce fuel poverty? Will he put in place a well-funded and ambitious plan to insulate existing solid-wall housing? Will he increase the amount available to landlords to spend on uplifting properties to band E? Will he put in place measures to improve energy efficiency in rented properties and new build properties? Will he give local authorities the power and resources to achieve more ambitious climate targets?

We face a climate emergency. This Parliament was the first to pass a motion declaring a climate emergency. We need action by the Government to ensure that we meet the challenge of that emergency.

15:47

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for bringing forward this important and timely debate, and congratulate him on his election as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. My first outing in this role was in front of his Committee—under a different Chair, who sadly was not re-elected. However, I am pleased to see that my right hon. Friend has taken her place.

I have taken part in a number of debates about these issues. This one covered many policy areas, including power generation, which is not really what the debate is about, but I will start with my right hon. Friend’s specific points about heat and the energy efficiency of homes. He presented five challenges, and I will address each individually.

First, my right hon. Friend mentioned zero-carbon heating beyond the RHI. We are absolutely committed to seeing how we can support the renewable heat incentive beyond the date on which it expires. He also mentioned the future homes standard. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) raised the fact that the zero-carbon homes target was scrapped. The Government feel that the future homes initiative is much more realistic and better in terms of reducing carbon emissions in houses than the initial zero-carbon scheme. That scheme allowed for offsetting, whereas the future homes standard will concentrate on lowering absolutely levels of emissions. I think that is a much better way of approaching the problem, but I am happy to discuss that with him later.

The third item mentioned by my right hon. Friend is really key to the debate: incentives for householders to contribute in some way to upgrading the energy efficiency of their homes. When we look at the totality of buildings in the UK in terms of their carbon emissions, the vast majority—about two thirds—are owner-occupied homes: those inhabited by people who have either paid off a mortgage or currently have one. It is a big challenge to raise the energy efficiency of those homes. Drawing on his professional background, he spoke about the ability to have consumer finance and incentivise people to make such large investments. On that note, the Government have already started: we have a £5 million green finance initiative, working with banks to provide finance for precisely the reasons he mentioned.

[Alan Brown]

Surely the £5 billion of green finance is a bigger package that will not be going to individual householders. If it was, it would be like the green deal scheme, which the Government had to terminate because it was not working right.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

It is an initial step. In Germany, KfW has a consumer finance piece that gives small loans for green initiatives. We had a green deal; my personal view and, I think, the Government view is that it did not work principally because the interest rate was too high. However, that does not discredit such initiatives.

I was struck that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) mentioned the Labour party manifesto and its commitments on houses. It was extraordinary but unsurprising that although she mentioned all the jobs that would be produced and carbon emissions, she did not say how much the policy would cost. That is a critical part of the debate. As my right hon. Friend suggested, a huge amount—in the order of £65 billion—needs to be invested in the next 10 years. That will not all come from the Government; some will come from consumers, who will rightly invest in making their homes more secure. Investments in those houses are not lost money; they will enhance property values, so they make commercial sense in many ways.

[Mr Virendra Sharma in the Chair]

The fifth specific point mentioned by my right hon. Friend was the EPC scheme. It is not a perfect measure, but it does capture something about what we are trying to do. It has an indicative value in forcing up the standards we expect not only of the Government but of private sector landlords, as was mentioned in the debate. In that space, I can announce that we are already consulting on tightening standards in the private rental sector. We aspire for private landlords not to get properties to EPC band E but to make investments to improve their properties to band B or C by 2030. That is a significant improvement and a step in the right direction.

The debate has shown that we still have a big task. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) highlighted the achievements of the Scottish Government, but he will appreciate that of the 27 million homes in the UK, 24.2 million are outside Scotland, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. While I appreciate the successes of the Scottish Government, we cannot see it simply as a competition. In fact, colleagues of his in the devolved Administration are always telling me, “We have got to work together and co-operate.” They want negotiations, discussions and policy evolution in partnership with the Government in Westminster. That is a welcome development. I have meetings and calls with Ministers in the devolved Administrations and I have just spoken on calls to Diane Dodds and Edwin Poots, the newly appointed Ministers in Northern Ireland. This cross-UK approach is the best method.

There are so many other issues we could talk about. We clearly need joined-up policy in this area. We cannot improve the energy performance of our buildings without engaging with our friends at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I was struck that that Department, which has responsibility for the performance of local authorities, was barely mentioned, which led me to believe that BEIS has the sole answers to all these questions. I wish that were true, but we do have to participate and engage with colleagues across Government in Treasury and MHCLG.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for rightly challenging me on the costs of the proposals I cited from the Labour manifesto. Our manifesto was fully costed, and the cost was £60 billion. As we said, we have the lowest interest rates in history. Will he tell me the cost of the thousands who currently die from fuel poverty? What is the cost to the economy of not meeting the challenges of the climate emergency?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I fully accept that we have to deal with fuel poverty in this country. We do have the policies—

[Chi Onwurah]

How much does it cost?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

If she will not barrack me, I can say that we do have policies addressing fuel poverty. We have the energy company obligation, which we are completely committed to, and we committed billions of pounds in our manifesto to address fuel poverty specifically.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I have two minutes in which to wrap up and allow my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow time to conclude the debate, so, with due courtesy and respect, please allow me to finish my remarks.

I am pleased that we had the debate and I am sure we will have more of them. This will probably make too much work for me and my officials, but I suggest we could debate specific issues raised this afternoon such as EPC standards, widening consumer finance and publicly owned building strategy—there are so many issues. Salix, the finance company focused on providing funding to upgrade public buildings, was not mentioned in the debate. There are many different avenues and I am sure that hon. Members in the Chamber will come to subsequent debates to discuss them more fully.

15:58

[Philip Dunne]

Welcome to your place to conclude the debate, Mr Sharma. I thank hon. Members who made contributions—when we started, I was not sure whether there would be any. I was delighted that we had thoughtful comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) and from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who personalised his contribution with images of windows iced-up inside as well as outside all over his constituency. I am grateful to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), for the constructive way in which the Opposition approached the debate. This is a cross-party issue on which there is broad consensus—not necessarily on the detail, however, as one would expect, particularly having just come through a general election campaign—and it will continue to reverberate around the House during this Parliament.

I welcome the Minister’s invitation to colleagues to continue with these themes in the coming months. I was particularly pleased to hear his commitment to extend RHI in some form and his comments on the future homes standard. We will look carefully at the Government’s response. I share his view that, with innovation in the City of London and other financial institutions in this country, we should be able to come up with a green finance scheme to help householders fund improvements.

The one area on which I would like to press the Minister on another occasion is the EPC regime, which needs to be looked at. I was slightly disappointed that he did not volunteer that. I hope that we can take another opportunity to discuss that, perhaps outside the Chamber.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No.10(6)).

Cawdor Barracks

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Westminster Hall

14:15

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of Cawdor Barracks, Brawdy.

It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I am pleased to have secured this short debate on Cawdor barracks at Brawdy in my constituency, home to the 14 Signal Regiment, which specialises in electronic warfare. I want to address the continued uncertainty that hangs over the site, arising from a closure plan that has changed several times in recent years under different Ministers at the Ministry of Defence.

I will start by giving a brief history of the barracks, before emphasising their importance to the armed forces in Wales and to the local community in Preseli, Pembrokeshire. Located on the north-west coast of Pembrokeshire, some six miles from St Davids—the UK’s smallest city—the Cawdor barracks site has a long and active military history, stretching back to the second world war. It was officially opened in February 1944, as RAF Brawdy, and was initially a satellite station supporting the heavy bomber aircraft stationed nearby at RAF St Davids.

Following the end of the war, the base was handed over to the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy, becoming a royal naval air station that was renamed RNAS Brawdy. From 1963 to 1971, the Brawdy site was home to Fairey Gannet anti-submarine aircraft and to Hawker Hunter fighter jets, demonstrating the base’s importance during the cold war. The Royal Navy left Brawdy in 1971 and the base was allocated to the then Department of the Environment. Three years later the strategic importance of the site was once again brought to the fore when the RAF returned to the base for a second time and D Flight of 22 Squadron took up residence with its Westland Whirlwind search and rescue helicopters.

In 1974 the 229 operational conversion unit, with its Hawker Hunters, relocated to Brawdy from RAF Chivenor in Devon, which was earmarked for closure. In that year the United States and the UK agreed to the construction of a SOSUS sound surveillance system alongside the RAF base at Brawdy, called a naval facilities engineering command. This US naval facility was to prove to be an essential and critical part of the site at Brawdy in the years ahead. Due to Brawdy’s proximity to the sea, it was an ideal location to house a station that monitored a growing number of underwater microphones designed to pinpoint Soviet submarines as they moved out of their waters and into the Atlantic, again underlining the base’s importance during the cold war.

A US military footprint would remain at the base for the next 20 years and, as with the RAF personnel based there, the Americans became a close-knit part of our community in Pembrokeshire during that time. I myself remember that at school, in the early-1980s, the American children in our classrooms were the first people from outside Britain that many of us had come across. The end of the cold war brought large-scale changes to the size and configuration of the armed forces, and that affected Brawdy, along with many other sites. The naval facilities engineering command facility was deactivated in 1995 and the Americans soon left.

Flying from Brawdy ceased in 1992, as part of the rationalisation of advanced and tactical weapons training, but it was a further two years until the remaining small number of RAF personnel and their Westland Sea King helicopters also left the site. In economic terms, the loss of the large number of RAF and US naval personnel and their families at that time had a significant negative impact on the Pembrokeshire economy. I will return to the economic value of the base later, but it is important for the Minister and others to understand the historical context of the decisions that are currently being taken about the future use of the site.

In 1995 the Brawdy site was transferred from the RAF to the British Army, under the name Cawdor barracks, and became a base for the 14th Signal Regiment, which had hitherto been located at various sites across Germany. At the time it was widely understood that the base was intended to be something of a temporary arrangement, with no certainty that it would become a permanent home. People closely involved in the transfer of the regiment to Cawdor barracks would later tell me that it was evident from the outset that the base was less than ideal, despite many positive aspects. The infrastructure on the site had lots of potential but required significant investment.

The main issue that has been raised with me time and again is the location, specifically the sheer distance of Brawdy from the Royal Corps of Signals HQ at Blandford in Dorset, or from the various UK regions from which the officers and soldiers of the regiment are primarily drawn. However, the temporary arrangement has now lasted a quarter of a century. The regiment is no longer seen as a somewhat mysterious outfit, dropped into Brawdy as a stopgap; it has become a deeply embedded and respected part of the local community in Pembrokeshire.

At this point it is worth saying what the 14th Signal Regiment does. It is the Army’s cyber and electronic warfare regiment. It has a unique role in providing a robust and sustainable electronic warfare capability to support deployed armed forces, facilitating operations in the electronic battle space. It is the only regiment in the British Army with these capabilities, and it bridges the gap between strategic cyber operations and tactical electronic warfare.

The soldiers based at Brawdy are at the cutting edge of electronic warfare, an increasingly important aspect of 21st century combat. Because of their unique set of capabilities, they have been used extensively on operations over the past 20 years, including those in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and numerous other locations where their activities, for very good reasons, will never be reported on or discussed openly. They continue to be used in the field even now. Operations Herrick and Telic in Afghanistan and Iraq saw soldiers from the 14th Signal Regiment used heavily. It is common to meet men and women from the regiment who completed two or three tours away from their friends and family during that period.

One of the biggest privileges in my time doing this job was in November 2006, when I attended the memorial service held in St Davids cathedral in my constituency for Corporal Peter Thorpe and Lance Corporal Jabron Hashmi, who were killed earlier that year in an attack by Taliban fighters in Helmand, Afghanistan. Both men had been serving with the 3rd Para Battlegroup but were either part of or attached to the 14th Signal Regiment. It was a privilege to meet members of their families and the Army imam, who participated alongside the dean of the cathedral in the memorial service, because Lance Corporal Hashmi was the first British Muslim soldier to be killed during this era of conflict.

Events such as this and the numerous homecoming parades that have been held in St Davids and in Haverfordwest, for the squadrons returning from tours of duty, have helped to cement a bond of affection and respect between the people of Pembrokeshire and this remarkable regiment. The regiment has been awarded the freedom of both the city of St Davids and the county town of Haverfordwest as testament to its contribution to our community and to our nation. The soldiers play an active part in the community, engaging with local schools, taking part in local Remembrance Day services and through annual charity concerts and open days. Soldiers at Brawdy also play a full part in the sports and social life in our county, competing in local rugby and football teams.

Yesterday we debated the Welsh contribution to the UK armed forces. Several hon. Members made the point that Wales should become home to one of the historic Welsh regiments—the Welsh Guards, the Queen’s Dragoon Guards or the Royal Welsh Regiment. The 14th Signal Regiment is not an historic Welsh regiment, but such is the bond of affection that it has formed with communities in west Wales over the past quarter of a century that it has, in my eyes and the eyes of many in my constituency, become a Welsh regiment.

About 250 Cawdor barracks personnel and their families are based in Pembrokeshire at any one time—the regiment has approximately 600 troops in total. I have heard it said a number of times that some of the officers do not like being based so far west along the M4, in deepest Pembrokeshire, but there is no question in my mind but that the overwhelming majority of the soldiers, and especially their families, have really embraced Pembrokeshire life. The spouses, partners and children of those stationed at Cawdor barracks have become a hugely important part of the local community.

There is also a strong community in Pembrokeshire of veteran families—those who once served at the barracks, or at the RAF base before that, and who have chosen to make Pembrokeshire their permanent home. Local schools have benefited from welcoming in the children of those stationed at Cawdor barracks, with the local authority telling me that about 100 primary school and 25 secondary school pupils from serving families currently attend schools in the county.

I have had the pleasure of visiting the barracks on numerous occasions over the years and speaking to the soldiers stationed there, and what comes across to me is that they genuinely enjoy being based in west Wales. With the particular lifestyle that rural Pembrokeshire offers, the outdoor activities ranging from surfing to mountain biking and climbing, and the friendliness of local people, it is little wonder that those who get stationed at Cawdor barracks through the regiment quickly fall in love with that part of Wales.

That brings me to the plans for closing the facility. In 2009, more than 10 years ago, publication of the MOD’s “Defence Estate Development Plan” kick-started what has proved to be a long drawn-out “on-off, on-off” discussion about closure and relocation of the 14th Signal Regiment. The MOD’s plan set out its framework for the defence estate to 2030; and in the plan, Cawdor barracks was identified as a “retained” site, which the MOD defines as a site

“where the future is not fully assured”.

In the same document, the idea of relocating the regiment was also first mooted, with it joining up with the also relocated 10 Signals in Blandford, Dorset, in a process called “pairing and sharing”.

A few years later, in March 2013, it was announced that the barracks were to close altogether and the 14th Signal Regiment was to be moved on. The then Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, stated that the MOD intended to close Cawdor barracks at Brawdy,

“which is no longer fit for purpose”,

but “not before 2018”. The regiment would be relocated to St Athan, near Cardiff. In the statement to the House, the Secretary of State noted:

“The local communities in each of those areas have been hugely supportive of the military presence over many years. The loss of historic ties will be much regretted”.—[Official Report, 5 March 2013; Vol. 559, c. 847.]

Two years later, in 2015, the MOD confirmed that the regiment would not now be relocating to St Athan. In fact, the former Minister, Mark Lancaster, indicated to me that the closure plan was now off, although there remained a vague long-term intention to relocate the regiment and dispose of Cawdor barracks at some point in the future.

A bit further forward, in November 2016, the then Defence Secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, said in a statement that the barracks would remain open to 2024, but with no suggestion of where the 14 Signals would move to. During that statement, I questioned the Secretary of State and made the following point to him. I will read it out for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Minister:

“I am disappointed that the earlier decision to shut the base of the 14th Signal Regiment…in my constituency, which I was told a year ago had been reversed, now seems to be back on the cards. That has all been unsettling for the soldiers at Cawdor barracks and their families, who are a well-loved part of the Pembrokeshire community.”

I asked:

“Will my right hon. Friend provide a bit more detail of the timeframe for the closure of the base, if it is indeed to happen? Will he give an assurance that there will not be any freeze of investment and that the base will be maintained to an acceptable standard as we approach the closure date?”

Michael Fallon responded:

“I am certainly happy to discuss continuing investment in the facilities… The estimated disposal date for Cawdor barracks is 2024, so I hope that that gives some more certainty to those who support the Signal Regiment there. We are shortly to confirm where the 14th Signal Regiment will be re-provided for.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2016; Vol. 616, c. 1295.]

That decision was reinforced in 2018, when a Defence Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), confirmed to the all-party parliamentary group on general aviation that Brawdy was one of 15 airfields across the UK being sold off by the MOD, as they were “surplus to military requirements.”

Clearly the whole saga has been very unsettling for the soldiers and their families, for the 30 civilians who work at the base, for the county council, which has a responsibility to try to plan sensibly for the future, and of course for the local communities affected. It is important to bear in mind that, for my constituency, losing such a facility will certainly result in an economic hit for the area. In 2015, in a review commissioned by Pembrokeshire County Council and the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, the economic effects of the closure of Cawdor barracks on the county were estimated at between £26 million and £30 million. That is a very significant amount for a rural community such as Pembrokeshire, where there are very few employers of any significant size. The local economy is dominated by agriculture and seasonal tourism and hospitality.

There is of course the important question of what the potential alternative uses might be for this site, with its large runway, hangars, sports facilities and other buildings, all located close to the national park. As interesting as all those elements of the site are, the truth, unless this Minister can inform me otherwise, is that over the past five years there have been very few prospective buyers coming forward and offering any alternative ideas for the site. Therefore, we need to be realistic: whatever use to which the site is eventually put will in all likelihood not fill the economic gap left by the closure.

What if the barracks were to close? I understand that the land is subject to the Crichel Down rules. That could see Brawdy offered back to its original owners for agricultural use. Although agriculture is very important in my constituency, returning the base to farmland would, I believe, not mitigate the loss of between £26 million and £30 million from the local economy.

Pembrokeshire County Council’s current local development plan, which is out for consultation, includes a proposal for an 11-hectare solar array for the Brawdy site that would be producing up to 5 MW. However, the size of any solar array is likely to be severely limited by the existing grid connections in west Wales and the substantial cost of increasing the grid capacity, so that does not look particularly hopeful as it stands.

In purely economic terms for my constituency, continued use of the site as a base for the regiment is the optimal outcome, which is why I am asking the Minister, in the first instance, if he will consider not pressing ahead with any closure plan but will instead recognise the value of what has been created in Pembrokeshire over the last 25 years in providing a home for the 14 Signals.

I totally understand that this matter is not purely about economics; it is first and foremost about what works best for the British Army in the years and decades ahead. However, I will draw attention to the importance of the armed forces footprint in Wales. The Brawdy site, like RAF Valley in north Wales, is one of those facilities that enables the MOD to claim that it has a genuine Wales-wide footprint. I know that the term “footprint” gets defined ever more broadly to cover all kinds of things, including suppliers to the armed forces, but if we are to use the term in its most meaningful way, we need to be thinking about those elements that constitute a real presence on the ground, which create bonds of respect and affection with local communities, where the personnel are part of those communities. Cawdor barracks, out there in far west Wales, provides for exactly that.

I hope that this afternoon I have been able to explain to you, Mr Sharma, and to the Minister the importance of Cawdor barracks and to make a case for retaining the facility in my constituency. That is my first ask of the Minister—to end the cloud of uncertainty that has been hanging over the barracks for the last 10 years and halt the closure plan, which has in any case shifted and changed over the years and sown seeds of confusion.

My second ask is for the Minister to look again at the potential of the site and pursue a strategy of making it fit for the future. Part of the reason why people will say that it is no longer fit for purpose is that it has had nothing like the investment that such a critical and sensitive part of the Army requires. A closure plan that has dragged on for 10 years already has resulted in the site being starved of sensible investment.

I have some further questions. If the Minister cannot fully satisfy me on the first two requests, will he confirm that, in the event of closure, the MOD will work closely with Pembrokeshire County Council to ensure that specific actions are taken to mitigate the economic impact? Will he commit to ensuring that those 30 or more civilians employed at Cawdor barracks will be re-employed before the base closes?

Can the Minister explain how he thinks the Crichel Down rules will work in the case of Cawdor barracks and whether the requirement to offer the site back to the original owners may act as an impediment to investment proposals? The local authority has been looking at numerous economic opportunities should the base close, but, as I said a few moments ago, very few serious concrete proposals have come forward.

I thank the Minister for taking the time to listen to my argument. He and I have discussed this issue before; he is very familiar with that part of west Wales and knows the community very well. He is also familiar with the work that the 14 Signals do. I thank him for the opportunity to set out a case for bringing this long-running saga to an end, to provide some greater certainty for the soldiers and the forces family connected to the 14th Signal Regiment, and hopefully for retaining an important part of the armed forces footprint in west Wales.

16:21

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing this debate. Quite apart from his position as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee and his former role as Secretary of State, he has an understandable interest in the future of this long-established defence site, located in his beautiful Preseli constituency.

The barracks has been a feature of the Pembrokeshire coast since 1944 and, as my right hon. Friend set out, it has the unusual distinction of having served all three of our armed services. It first served as an operational airfield for the RAF, which operated Liberator heavy bombers there during the second world war, as he set out. It then served as a station for Royal Navy airborne early warning craft during the cold war. Finally, it has served as the home of the Army’s electronic warfare unit since the 1990s. The barracks has therefore played an important role in the military history of Pembrokeshire as well as that of Wales more generally.

My right hon. Friend brought us up to date by eloquently describing the links between the community and the service personnel of the 14th Signal Regiment, and the respect and affection in which they are held. I recognise that both they and the base’s civilian employees are important to the local economy. I therefore wholly understand his concern about the effects of the November 2016 announcement of Cawdor’s closure. I also understand that this has been a long story. The base’s closure was announced in November 2016, and I sympathise with his point that this has been a period of uncertainty for the community.

However, I must tell my right hon. Friend, with regret, that the intent to dispose of the barracks remains. The armed forces are now 30% smaller than at the end of the last century, but the defence estate has not yet been proportionately reduced in size. In many areas we use our defence estate efficiently, but overall it is too big, too expensive and has too many sites to maintain. That is why in the 2015 strategic defence and security review we committed to investing in a smaller, but optimised and efficient, defence estate. Military capability outputs have been at the heart of our defence estate strategy, and we are taking a transformational approach to better support the future requirements of our armed forces by generating special centres of specialisation and capability clusters.

Consolidating the defence estate enables the Ministry of Defence to concentrate its assets, investing in significantly better facilities to support the men and women of our armed forces. The Cawdor site, designed for the needs of the second world war and the cold war that followed, is sadly no longer fit for the vital and increasingly central purposes of electronic and cyber-warfare in the 21st century. Nor does the unit’s geographic location provide the easy synergies that the regiment needs with the units and organisations that it supports. We must ensure that the regiment can maximise its operational capabilities.

The Government understand the strength of feeling in those local communities impacted by the relocation of military units, here and elsewhere, and the deep-rooted histories and ties that are thereby sadly broken. I can reassure my right hon. Friend that careful consideration is being given to alternative uses for the site, with the aim of increasing the commercial use, driving regeneration and creating local jobs. We have a little time, given that the earliest date for closure is anticipated to be 2024, and I absolutely commit that my Department will work closely with Pembrokeshire County Council on potential future uses.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am very interested in everything the Minister is saying. Can he give me a commitment this afternoon that in his new ministerial capacity—he is doing a great job in the Department, by the way—he will take the opportunity to visit the Cawdor Barracks site in the near future and perhaps come and see the site for himself, but also take a moment with me to meet Pembrokeshire County Council, to talk about the plans for closing the site and what steps need to be taken in the years ahead, to ensure that that transfer happens with minimal impact on my constituents and in the most productive and useful way possible?

[Jeremy Quin]

I can absolutely commit to meeting my right hon. Friend here at Westminster. I would like to take the opportunity to visit the site and talk to the county council, but I cannot commit wholly to that—he will appreciate the pressures on diaries right at the start of one’s time in post. I would like to visit, and I will certainly make myself available in Westminster to speak to him about the application.

I would also like to talk to my right hon. Friend about the Crichel Down rules. Those rules normally apply only where sites are undeveloped, but that is something that we can take up and talk about in the context of this site, if that is helpful. As I have just outlined, we will work with the county council and that work will inform the engagement that we will also have with the Welsh Government, with the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and others on the potential alternative uses of the site.

The decision to close Cawdor barracks is an operational one, driven by the needs of the armed services, but it is no reflection on the Government’s strong commitment to maximising the contribution of Wales to the defence of the UK and maximising the benefits of the defence sector there. On the contrary, as my right hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and I, along with many other hon. Members, discussed in yesterday’s debate, Wales has made a first-rate contribution to the defence of the realm, and we are determined to maximise the benefits of the defence sector there.

To conclude, closures of established military bases inevitably have consequences for local communities, and my right hon. Friend has drawn that to our attention. Over recent years the Government have had to make a number of such difficult decisions in respect of bases around the UK. Our armed forces need facilities and accommodation that fully meet their operational needs. However, we recognise that the closure of this long-established site will inevitably have impacts on Pembrokeshire beyond the defence community. That is why my Department is working actively with the local authority and others to identify the most beneficial future use of the site. I commit myself to continuing to do so, with the help and assistance of my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

UK Chemical Industry: Regulatory Divergence

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Westminster Hall

16:29

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulatory divergence in the UK chemical industry.

If we buy a car, house, cleaning products, food or clothes or visit the swimming pool or cinema, chemicals are involved in making the products we use. Chemicals are ubiquitous in our lives, and the chemical industry is a vital part of our national economic wellbeing. Chemicals are vital to the jobs of thousands of workers. Contract Chemicals is an SME in Knowsley that manufactures chemicals, and Blends is another that sells products made from chemicals. Both employ some of my constituents, whose livelihoods could be at risk if the Government do not get the chemical regulatory regime right. In the Liverpool city region, Jaguar Land Rover, Ford and Vauxhall employ thousands of workers in car production in which chemicals are vital components. Without a robust system of regulation, safety and quality will be compromised and our chemicals market will be open to the dumping of cheap chemicals from markets that do not have our high standards.

The consequences of poor regulation are spelled out in “Dark Waters”, which will be released on Friday in the UK. The film depicts what can happen to tens of thousands of people and to wildlife without adequate safeguards. In our addressing the climate crisis and moving to net zero, the chemical industry has a vital role to play in ending the use of fossil fuels, recycling plastics and finding sustainable alternatives, including for the types of forever chemicals depicted in the film.

The chemical industry employs 102,000 well-paid people in the UK, with 24,000 in the north-west alone. The industry is worth £31.4 billion in exports and £34.6 billion in imports, and its products feature in their thousands in the production of goods across the entire economy. Some 57% of those exports are into the EU. The importance of the industry around the country is also spelled out by the productivity of the sector compared with the rest of the economy. In the north-east, it is three times more productive; in the north-west, four and a half times more productive; and nationally, it is twice as productive. We cannot afford to undermine such a key part of our economy.

Chemicals are the subject of REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—the strict European-wide regulations that make sure the chemicals used here are the safest in the world and help to produce the highest quality products.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend rightly says that REACH regulations are central to chemical production not only in this country but across Europe. Does he share my concern, and that of companies in my constituency, that without the same REACH regulations in Britain as in Europe, the movement of chemicals between countries will be inhibited?

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know he has a good relationship with the chemical industry in the north-east and has spoken many times on this subject and in support of people who work in the industry. I will come on to make the point that he touches on in more detail.

REACH regulations protect human health and the environment. In chemical regulation, the high standards for chemicals used in our manufacturing also sustain the reputation that encourages people around the world to buy British. Before the current Prime Minister took over, the Government indicated a willingness to negotiate associate membership of REACH, and that is still the preferred option for the industry. The system delivers assurance to the industry and its downstream operations, including our entire manufacturing sector, all of which uses chemicals at some stage of production.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I too represent a number of chemical companies in my constituency. He is right to draw attention to the administrative benefits of remaining associated with the REACH regime, but also to the cost implications. Companies based in my constituency make the point that they have spent a considerable sum on REACH registration. Having to register for a new scheme at similar cost will make their businesses unviable in some cases, or may lead them to relocate to EU countries.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been told that estimated costs of between £50,000 and £100,000 per chemical are likely if a UK REACH system is introduced in the way the Government appear to be proposing. I will cover that in more detail as well.

The Government have made clear their opposition to regulatory alignment in general, and given that UK REACH is the default option, they appear to not want to make an exception for the chemical industry. The British Coatings Federation speaks of the practical and real problems that businesses will face with such a system. For example, REACH will continue to apply in Northern Ireland at the end of the transition period, even if a separate UK-based regime applies in the rest of the UK. It is not yet clear how that would work in practice. There is obvious concern that EU and UK REACH will, in theory, apply at the same time in Northern Ireland and will contradict each other.

Let me quantify my hon. Friend’s point. BASF employs 5,000 people in the UK. It estimates that it will have to find up to £70 million to re-register all existing lines. Its alternative is not to offer many of its smaller volume products in the UK, but many are critical to manufacturing. In the car industry, an average of 1,300 different chemicals are used in the production of each vehicle. If many of those products are not available in the UK, car manufacturers will have to import them; it will fall to car companies to register the chemicals and to develop the skills and facilities for storage. This would apply to all chemicals where usage volume was more than 1 tonne per year. Registration costs of £50,000 to £100,000 per chemical are likely to apply, as the Government have confirmed. At that cost, chemical companies would find it uneconomic to continue the production or import of many chemicals. Meanwhile, car producers would find it much harder to compete with EU-located production facilities in the manufacture of vehicles destined for the EU market.

The chemical industry exports 57% of UK-manufactured chemicals to the EU27. A UK manufacturer will have to register its products to comply with UK REACH, as they are made here, and also EU REACH if they are exported into the EU. If our regulations diverge, as the Prime Minister appears to favour, and as may be required as the price of a trade deal with the United States, manufacturers would need not only to demonstrate compliance with both sets of regulations but have two production lines—one to comply with UK regulations, the other for the EU’s. The alternative is to move production to the EU for the EU-compliant product, meaning a loss of exports and jobs from the UK.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kate Green]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bill Esterson]

I am spoiled for choice. I will give way first to my nearer neighbour.

[Kate Green]

Your north-west friend.

[Bill Esterson]

My north-west friend; there we are.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful. My hon. Friend rightly highlights cost issues and the potential need to register through two different regimes, which would bring additional administrative complexity. He will be interested to know that a chemical company in my constituency has also drawn attention to the need for extra testing if there is a need to comply with two different regimes, including extra testing on animals, which I think would be particularly unwelcome to the British public.

[Bill Esterson]

I am glad my hon. Friend mentioned the real concern about animal testing, which we can minimise currently because we are members of EU REACH, so testing does not need to be repeated in the UK. The industry has raised that as a real concern, which I will return to.

[Alex Cunningham]

Both my hon. Friends are right to raise the issue of cost. One company in my constituency is already up against it trying to making any profit at all because the regime is changing for carbon credits. The current proposals mean it will soon no longer receive the relief it currently does. That company is a supplier to other chemical companies within my constituency and elsewhere, so if it falls over and that product is no longer available, there will be a knock-on effect on many jobs across the area. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is another reason that we cannot have the divergence that the Prime Minister seems to favour?

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend has explained well that the problem goes across the economy because chemicals are crucial to every manufacturing process.

I was talking about the problem of having to comply with two different sets of regulations and the impact the industry predicts, including a loss of exports and jobs in the UK. Products cross borders multiple times during manufacturing. The integrated nature of supply chains in manufacturing is a big reason why it would be difficult to manufacture in the UK for the EU market in the event of different chemical regulations.

Despite the Government’s presumption in favour of regulatory divergence in general, the Minister may want to say that the Government do not intend to change the regulations that are introduced with a UK REACH. I am interested to hear her comments on that point. The suspicion that divergence is likely has been reinforced by part 8 of the Environment Bill, which gives the Secretary of State the powers to diverge. If the Government do not intend to change the regulations, why have that in the Bill? In his speech on Second Reading this afternoon, the Secretary of State did not mention the section of the Bill that deals with regulation of the chemical industry, which is disappointing because the industry is so vital to the wider economy. Likewise it is disappointing to the industry and those who rely on it that there is no news about a sector deal for the chemical industry.

[Alex Cunningham]

Perhaps that was not mentioned because the Government have seen sense and realised that they cannot have these tremendous changes. This is about not just day one—when we might say, “We will have the same regulations on day one”—but the future regulations, because every day something changes in the REACH regime, which means one part of a process may no longer be compliant in Europe and Britain at the same time. Therefore, we need to ensure we have common regulation across the piece.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend has explained well why the industry is worried about this: sooner or later divergence leads to the problems that he and I have outlined.

Some 54.8% of cars produced in the UK are exported to the EU, so preferential access to the European market and avoiding regulatory divergence on chemicals is therefore extremely important. The automotive industry uses 13,000 chemical substances, only 1,181 of which are exclusively registered by UK companies. Many of the remaining 98,000 chemicals registered by the European REACH system could need to be re-registered in the UK. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the cost to the automotive industry alone could be up to £1.3 billion. The Government have not denied those figures in their own analysis. The car industry is deeply concerned about the impact on its competitiveness and on the future of volume car manufacturing in the UK if we move away from a single European regulatory system.

UK REACH will either require access to the chemical testing data, as my hon. Friends mentioned, held by the European Chemicals Agency, or have to repeat and duplicate testing, hence the cost of registration for each substance, which I quoted earlier. Consortia of European companies own most of the data, and UK companies pay a fee for access to the data, which is held by the ECHA. Selling access to the data is a commercial decision not governed by EU data sharing rules.

The Health and Safety Executive, which is due to become the UK chemicals agency—perhaps the Minister can clarify when that will happen—will need to build its own database if it cannot access the ECHA database. According to the plans for UK REACH set out in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, basic data about the market and each substance will need to be submitted within 120 days of the end of transition, while full information appropriate to the registrant’s tonnage band will need to be submitted within two years. It took 10 years to build the ECHA database. How can that be replicated in two years, given that many companies will have to carry out testing from scratch and many importers are not specialists in the chemical industry?

Concerns have also been raised about the capacity of the HSE and the legal framework it will follow. It could either repeat the work of ECHA or rely on the work ECHA has carried out. The former would be hugely expensive, time consuming and dependent on a level of scientific expertise that may not be available. The latter could leave it open to challenge on the grounds that it should not be reliant on EU evidence and should have made its own assessment of risk. Either approach is potentially problematic.

An additional concern of the industry is that, as some registration of chemicals in REACH has relied on animal testing, a UK REACH would mean the introduction of animal testing—a point my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston made earlier. Steve Elliot, the chief executive of the Chemical Industries Association, said

“The EU remains our biggest customer and supplier, so securing a tariff-free, frictionless free trade agreement is essential. Most crucially creating a parallel UK regulatory regime for chemicals, whilst still needing to meet the legal requirements of our biggest market place under EU REACH will, in our view, bring no commercial or environmental benefit and could put businesses and jobs at risk right across the country, including seeing a whole new programme of animal testing, something that none of us wants to happen.”

In a written answer on 4 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), said that UK REACH will maintain the “aims and principles” of EU REACH. In the light of the industry’s importance, is that not an argument for staying part of the current system and avoiding the problems of implementing a separate version? In a recent British Coatings Federation members survey, 90% of members expressed their fear of having a duplicate set of chemical regulations through a UK REACH and all the extra bureaucracy and costs that would bring. The BCF said:

“We need government to understand the complexity of the integrated chemicals supply chain and come up with an appropriate free trade deal to prevent—or at least minimise—substantially added costs or disruption to our members.”

I place on record my thanks to the Chemical Industries Association, the British Coatings Federation, the Chemical Business Association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the ADS group, the CHEM Trust, BASF and multiple trade unions, as well as the specialists of the House of Commons Library. They have all helped with this complex, technically demanding subject. They have all helped confirm just how serious the issue is for our economy and for safety, too. I hope the Minister and her colleagues are listening to their advice.

Steve Elliott of the CIA said:

“The isolationist approach doesn’t work for us. I can’t think of a member company who isn’t exporting at least 50/60 per cent of its production.”

We have to remember that most of that exporting is into the EU. ADS gave me the example of potassium dichromate, which is a crucial chemical coating that protects aircraft structures from corroding. The example makes Mr Elliott’s case: there is no viable alternative to the use of that chemical in aircraft structures. It is produced in the UK and marketed in the EU. It is registered with REACH, so if the UK is removed from REACH, the registration would become non-existent and it would not be possible to import or sell it in the EU, to manufacture the mixture or to apply it to aerospace components. That would cause huge commercial damage to the aerospace industry in the UK and in the EU.

That story is repeated many times for UK-manufactured chemicals, so what is the plan for products like potassium dichromate and for aircraft manufacturing? What is the plan for the regions that rely on the chemical industry for their productivity? What is the plan for all other industries that rely on chemicals in their processes? What is the plan for multiple cross-border manufacturing supply chains? What is the plan for exports and imports, for safety, for data analysis, for testing and scientific expertise, including animal testing, for the creation of an alternative database, or for access to the existing ECHA database? What is the plan for capacity and expertise in the HSE? What is the plan for a sector deal? Tell us, Minister, what is the plan?

16:52

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I am very happy to sum up for the Scottish National party in this important debate, whose importance belies its attendance. In the first instance, I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who secured the debate, by pointing out that little or no manufacturing takes place without almost total dependence on the chemical manufacturing sector and the regulation that underpins that—both domestically in the United Kingdom and, just as importantly, around the world.

Across all manufacturing sectors, we see the clearest indications from stakeholders, whether commercial, trade union or in processing, that we live in a world of very integrated international supply chains, and we have done for some time. They are dependent on regulatory alignment. It is also worth pointing out the amount of research and development money that goes into the chemical industry, much of it private—how that interacts with our higher education sector, the role the United Kingdom plays in that and how we discharge that role with our international partners, many of whom are in the European Union.

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Member mentions research and development, and we are of course dealing with multinational companies with plants all over the world. If they are going to do research and development, surely they will do that in areas where they have common regulations such as REACH, rather than in a future British chemical industry, which could be a backwater.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Member is right, and the risk that the United Kingdom runs in seeking to pursue some alternate regulatory framework is exactly as he sets out: industry will produce its products to be compliant with the regulation consistent with the size of the market opportunity—it is not a blanket approach. If a market is subject to a particular regulatory framework, but that market is not big enough for the industry to comply with the framework, they simply will not comply and those products will not be available in a post-Brexit, post-REACH-regulation United Kingdom.

As we roll the dice on this issue, it is important to understand the slightly rarefied position occupied by the chemical industry in the United Kingdom. It has a turnover of £56.6 billion, but a very enviable gross value added of £19.2 billion. The Government must tread carefully and pay close attention to the members within trade organisations, such as the Chemical Industries Association and others, who are very clear with their call for regulatory alignment.

We have heard an awful lot about the cost of the re-creation of some successor to EU REACH, which is as yet unspecified, but I genuinely, thoroughly believe that the point is moot. As Members have said, the industry will offshore the UK manufacturing of chemicals. Other industries within the UK that rely on the products of the chemical industry will be subject to buying from another market. That will in all likelihood be the European Union, so we will then face the farcical situation of having dispensed with REACH regulations here—which will have cost us our industry, or a large part of it—and of then being in possession of the very same standard of product purchased from the EU, just without the £56.6 billion of turnover, or a large part thereof, and the jobs that went with it. The stakes are no lower than that! Having said that, were the UK to press ahead with some parallel regulatory framework for chemicals, the resultant animal testing, as others have mentioned, would be held in contempt by society, and rightly so. It is important to bear that in mind.

The regulation and supply of chemicals is yet another area of huge complexity in that Brexit ambition. Brexit will have an impact on the chemical industry driven by changing regulatory requirements, as others have mentioned, and by other trade barriers, potentially including tariffs and quotas. The REACH chemicals regulations are but one example of directly applicable EU legislation that is not straightforward to copy across into UK law. The principal objective remains, however, to ensure that those regulations still have priority in a post-Brexit United Kingdom dynamic. That is because the regulations rely on the European Chemicals Agency and are closely tied to the needs of the single market. The UK and EU chemical industries both want trade deals to ensure frictionless trade and regulatory consistency between the UK and the EU. That points to the complex supply chains that exist for the manufacturing sector.

I am very glad that the hon. Member for Sefton Central, who secured the debate, mentioned potassium chromate. As a former aircraft engineer, I still remember keenly the sweet smell of that sticky green substance which was difficult to get out from under the fingernails. Its role in preventing dissimilar metal corrosion in aircraft is well known and vital. That had the effect of taking me slightly down memory lane.

In conclusion, as a Scottish and a Scottish National party MP, I have no hesitation in supporting the ambitions of the hon. Member. The UK is a key global player in the chemical industries just now. As far as I can tell, the only chemical company in the UK in the top five chemical companies in the world is INEOS, which has a major presence in Grangemouth in Scotland. The Chemical Industries Association also covers the pharmaceutical industry, and I am very privileged to have in my constituency of Angus an extraordinarily large and important GlaxoSmithKline plant. Nowhere does interdependence and mutual reliance on common regulation apply more than in that plant.

[Alex Cunningham]

INEOS has been in my constituency as well, but it is actually closing down a plant there; the plant has finished because it is past its use-by date. INEOS can invest billions of pounds in the middle east, but nothing in Britain at this time. For me, the main issue is what the hon. Gentleman has talked about: the integrated nature of the chemical industry. The industry is losing a key component; if there are changes in regulations over time, more and more of those parts will disappear. We will therefore be reliant on the imports that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

[Dave Doogan]

Indeed. I am not here to defend or uphold the commercial decisions of INEOS, but what the industry more generally needs at this minute is clarity and certainty from Government, as far as that is possible. I look forward to the Minister explaining how the Government will give the industry the confidence and certainty that will enable them to invest in plants in Scotland and the rest of the UK. Those plants’ return on investment may take decades, and it is extremely important that we give them every opportunity to invest in infrastructure and jobs, with the attendant benefits that those bring to our communities.

Over and above the material contemporary considerations of the chemical industry, this issue is important for the livelihoods of many people in Scotland and in my constituency of Angus. Of course, industrial production of chemicals first began in Scotland, with the industrial production of bleach just north of Glasgow. We have moved a long way in the intervening 150 years, and I would hate for us to start moving back as a consequence of Brexit.

17:01

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Sharma, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for having secured this important debate. I also welcome the Minister to her new position; I know she takes a keen interest in green issues and in waste, and I look forward to hearing her response on chemical regulation in a post-Brexit UK. I expect it will be very interesting.

This has been an informative debate. Obviously, we have experts in the room: I bow before their expert knowledge, which has brought things together much more coherently for me. I will leave the Chamber with much more knowledge than I came in with, for which I thank the Members who have spoken.

One thing that we already knew before coming here was that our departure from the European Union would change how we do business, how our country functions, and how we ensure that chemical regulation in the UK is going to be fit for purpose in the years ahead. Although this may seem like a niche issue, it has been clearly articulated that chemical regulation is going to have a wide impact on the UK as a whole, so we must take that on board and make sure we deal with it carefully. We on the Opposition Benches echo the concerns of the chemical industry and the Royal Society of Chemistry. On this and many other issues, we ask the Government to be wise and careful when it comes to diverging from the standards and regulations that consumers, industry and our global partners have come to expect here in the United Kingdom.

As we have heard, chemicals manufacturing supply chains are well established, with materials often crossing the channel several times for some of the most complex products. Even the most minimal tariffs that would apply if the Government crash us out with no deal, combined with the requirement to respond to separate regulatory regimes and the need for documents to precede foods at borders, would have a negative impact on future manufacturing supply chains and strategies in the UK.

The Government are starting their approach to the coming months from the negotiating position that there will be no dynamic alignment with EU regulations in a new UK-EU trade deal, and have indicated that divergence will feature heavily. I am particularly concerned that the Government have not indicated an intention to seek close co-operation with the European Chemicals Agency. Regulatory divergence has the real potential to severely impact the quality and strength of public health and environmental protections. We should be levelling up, not cutting ties.

As the Royal Society of Chemistry and others have said, it is important for the Government to be conscious of divergent sources of data. Harmful divergence could occur if the evidence base is not harmonised, so a new and binding legal agreement is needed in order to continue sharing commercially sensitive data between authorities in the UK and the European Chemicals Agency.

I reiterate to the Minister and to Members on the Government Benches that hurried divergence, done in order to pretend to the British people that everything will be done and dusted by the end of 2020, will be dangerous and reckless. If all we see are quick, short-term economic international trade wins or speedily rolled-out innovations, the people out there will know what the Government are up to. I do not want lowered environmental protections or a risk to public health in Banbury, in Newport West, or in any other part of our United Kingdom.

I share the concerns of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Sefton Central, for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), as well as those of the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) —it is a shame that his constituency does not also begin with an “S”; that would have been much more alliterative—about the economic impact on British industry if divergence leads to negative consequences for our ability to trade products with the European Union.

The Government also need to be careful about what their approach means for business and industry, because they could land up doubling the burden on business and industry through masses of extra regulation. For example, the REACH regulation refers to the EU regulations on chemicals, as has been clearly articulated by all Members who have spoken this afternoon. The extra cost to UK businesses of duplicating EU REACH in the United Kingdom after the transition period is estimated by the Chemical Industries Association to be in excess of £1 billion, without any environmental benefit and potentially forcing duplicate testing. We call on the Government to do all they can to avoid that sort of duplication and deliver the essential solutions required to grow the environmental, social and economic performance of our country.

I pay tribute to the Chemical Industries Association for its work on this issue. It has made clear that securing a deal with the European Union that guarantees tariff-free trade, regulatory alignment and access to skilled people continues to be of critical importance for the chemical industry, which will rely on our future relationship being as frictionless as possible.

I hope the Minister will address many of the concerns highlighted today, particularly about the willingness to inflict damage on our industries through a policy of divergence. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central for having brought this issue before the House, and look forward to working with him and the sector on this important issue in the weeks and months ahead.

17:07

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I welcome the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) to her place, and look forward to many happy hours spent together discussing interests that have always engaged us both, particularly those involving the environment and food waste.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing this important debate. As he made clear, our chemical sector is world leading and vital to a wide range of other key industries, such as pharmaceuticals, automotive and aerospace. He gave some good examples from his own constituency and demonstrated his knowledge of how important that is, as did other Members present. We all know that the chemical industry is an important one, and want to ensure it continues to succeed.

In 2018, the total trade in chemicals in the UK, including chemical products, was worth £60.2 billion. The UK chemical sector directly employs more than 100,000 people. That sector is an important part of the economy in all the UK regions, with some major chemical clusters that are, unsurprisingly, represented in the Chamber today. They include Teesside, Humberside, Southampton, Grangemouth—mentioned by the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), whom I welcome to his place—and north-west England, which has the highest number of employees in the sector, with some 24,000 people in the region working in the chemical industry.

Leaving the EU provides us with a unique opportunity to develop a regulatory environment that will not only deliver the high standards mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport West, but be flexible according to our current and future needs. Now that we have left the EU, our priority is to maintain an effective regulatory system for the management and control of chemicals, to safeguard human health and the environment, and to respond to emerging risks. We need to ensure that our chemical industry continues to flourish in the UK and abroad, building on our strong trading links with the EU and seizing new export opportunities now we have the freedom to trade with the rest of the world.

[Alex Cunningham]

I, too, welcome the Minister to her place. I hope that she will accept an early invitation to Teesside, which I extend to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). As a lawyer, the Minister knows that the EU REACH regulation is extremely complicated. What on earth are the impediments to simply adopting it? What is the additional flexibility that she talks about that we actually need to trade with the rest of the world?

[Victoria Prentis]

As a lawyer, I tell the hon. Gentleman that that is an extremely long and complicated question, to which I will endeavour to provide some of the answers, but not all, because, as he knows, it is a live negotiating situation. I recognise that that brings uncertainty for business—I really do—which is uncomfortable for many of us, but it is important that the country voted to leave the EU and through various—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has been here for the last few years, as I have.

Through various emanations, we have reached a position where we are definitely leaving the single market and the customs union, and we will no longer participate in the ECHA or the EU regulatory framework for chemicals. I will set out what the Government’s position is in the immediate future. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that we do not have all the answers, but I emphasise that my door, and the door of the Minister with responsibility for the issue, will be open as we go through the negotiations this year.

[Dave Doogan]

It is helpful and candid of the Minister to clarify that the Government do not have all the answers. In pursuit of those answers, may I ask whether the Minister and her officials will give due cognisance to the fact that the scale of the European chemical industry, and the regulation that underpins it, is the global benchmark? A UK post-Brexit chemical industry would divest from that at its peril.

[Victoria Prentis]

In many ways, the hon. Gentleman will find that we are on exactly the same page, so I ask him to listen to the rest of what I have to say. We can then discuss the position as it emerges in the negotiations this year.

As I said, we are leaving the single market and the customs union, so we need to prepare for life outside at the end of this year. Many in the sector have already started to prepare and we will help them as much as we can. First, we must create our own independent regulatory regime, which is called UK REACH, as we have heard. Hon. Members will note that that is not a million miles away from the name of EU REACH. That will ensure continuity and minimise disruption for businesses and consumers, and will give us the freedom to do things differently where we consider that in our best interest. UK REACH will be our own framework but will retain the fundamental approach of REACH, including its aims of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment, and of enhancing innovation and competitiveness. We have developed transitional measures, such as grandfathering and downstream user import notifications, that address the industry’s concerns about maintaining continuity of supply between the UK and Europe.

The building blocks of REACH will all remain. Through the Environment Bill, we will make provision to allow us to amend REACH in future to ensure that our chemicals management remains fully up to date. All change will remain consistent with the fundamental aims and principles enshrined in EU REACH. There will also be a series of protected provisions that cannot be changed, such as the last resort principle on animal testing, which will be included in the Environment Bill, as has been said. The UK will, of course, continue to be at the forefront of opposing animal tests where alternative approaches can be used. We have led the way on that in the EU system to date.

I recognise the concerns that several hon. Members have raised during the debate about the UK diverging from the approach taken in the EU to the regulation of chemicals, which are obviously shared by all our stakeholders. We will not diverge for the sake of it. If we diverge, it will be done in the best interests of the UK and the environment, and of course we will take account of the impact on industry. What matters is that the decisions we take will be our own, reflecting our new autonomy. Robust scientific evidence lies at the heart of the decisions we take, and that will continue, as provided for in the UK REACH legislation. As I said, we are continuing to develop the proposals, to make sure that we take decisions transparently and with stakeholder engagement. I am keen that we go forward in that vein.

[Alex Cunningham]

I bear in mind what the Minister is saying, but it frightens the life out of me, because the regulation changes every day. I do not know how we will manage to keep pace with that in Britain. Industry will incur considerably greater costs as a result of the changes. What assistance will the Government give to chemical companies and the chemical industry as a whole to overcome the additional burden that the Government are placing on them?

[Victoria Prentis]

While I am unable to tell the hon. Gentleman exactly where we will end up, I am also unable to answer that question as fully as it deserves. If I may, I will continue to tell him where we are now. As matters progress with the negotiations, I remain willing to talk to him about specific industry difficulties, and I am sure the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will too.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Victoria Prentis]

I think I had better carry on, if the hon. Gentleman is happy.

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Gentleman is not happy.

[Victoria Prentis]

Well, as we have time, I will make the hon. Gentleman happy.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She says that she cannot answer the questions, but they are the questions that the chemical industry is asking us. We are talking about a matter of months before the changes actually kick in and affect industry in this country. That involves thousands of jobs in my constituency and tens of thousands across the country, so I am naturally anxious, and I can understand the industry being anxious as well. When are we going to get some answers?

[Victoria Prentis]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s anxiety. What I will say to reassure him, in so far as I can in a live negotiating situation, is that we will avoid change for change’s sake. We will do our best. We are fully cognisant of the need to minimise the burdens on business. That lies at the absolute heart of all that we are doing to put UK REACH in place.

Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. In building the UK REACH IT system, we have made sure that it will work very much like the ECHA REACH IT system, including the same software requirements and many of the processes that businesses have been using and understand. I am aware that we will require businesses to provide us with the data that supports their registrations. I understand the concern that that may not be as straightforward as they would like and may generate costs. That is why we have introduced the transitional arrangements that I mentioned earlier, which give businesses two years, starting from the end this year, to provide that information. We will keep those timeframes closely under review.

We are often asked why we need the data and why information that has already been provided to the ECHA needs to be reprovided to UK REACH. In short, we need it because we will not be able to rely on the fact that the data has already been sent to the ECHA. Registration is how a company shows its understanding of the hazards and risks of a chemical. It does not mean that the ECHA has, in legal terms, approved a chemical or endorsed it as safe. The data is necessary for any regulator, such as the Health and Safety Executive, to operate an effective regulatory regime, to understand the hazards and risks of chemicals, and to ensure their safe use. We are making sure that the HSE as the UK regulator, the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have the resources and evidence they need to ensure the safe management of chemicals and to protect public health and the environment.

With the UN projecting a doubling in the size of the global chemicals industry by 2030, it matters more than ever that the UK continues to be a world leader in the management and regulation of chemicals. Our internationally recognised scientific expertise and evidence-led, risk-based approach give us a strong and influential voice as we advocate for ambitious global action on chemicals and waste management after 2020.

I want to finish by saying something about the chemicals strategy we are developing, which will set out our priorities and approach to domestic regulation now that we have left the EU. It will be our first such strategy for 20 years. We aim to drive sustainability, circularity and innovation in the chemicals industry, while protecting human health and the environment from harmful chemical exposure. A call for evidence will be published very shortly—this spring—and we will then undertake a public consultation on a draft strategy before its final publication, which is scheduled for 2021-22. We genuinely want to hear from the industry.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful for some of the answers that the Minister has given, but one of the points she has not addressed is exports. Some 57% of UK chemical exports and 54% of car exports go to the EU market; the role of chemicals with the correct regulatory registration will be vital, as will approval for the European market. Will she address the export problem that is faced both directly in the chemical industry and, more generally, in industries whose products contain chemicals—not just the car industry—in having these two systems?

[Victoria Prentis]

As the hon. Member says, the export market is very important. There are exports worth £28.3 billion, with 57% of that going to the EU and 43% going elsewhere. It is clearly important that we get to the end of our trade negotiations as soon as possible, so that certainty can be provided. He knows as well as I do that the situation is fluid at the moment, and I am unable to give him all the answers he seeks. What I can say is that we have a new and exciting chemicals strategy, on which we will be consulting.

[Alex Cunningham]

I have a very simple, straightforward question. Will we accept European REACH regulations for imported goods, or will they also have to be compliant with the UK REACH regulations? Will we just accept that products coming in are fine because they are covered by EU REACH, when we have our own independent regime as well?

[Victoria Prentis]

As a new Minister, I am not sure that I am qualified to answer that question properly.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Minister write to me?

[Victoria Prentis]

Yes, absolutely. I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman with the correct answer. It is really important that we do not misspeak at this point of a live trade negotiation. I am also conscious that the matter is not directly within my brief but within that of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is currently leading the debate on Second Reading of the Environment Bill in the main Chamber. I do not want to answer that question without full instructions, for which I apologise.

I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central for securing a debate on this important industry at this critical time in the negotiations and for stressing that it is important that we do not diverge for the sake of it, and that we ensure we have a regulatory regime that works for us and fulfils all the aims we hope for, and that makes life as easy as we can for people who work in the chemical industry, including those in his constituency.

17:24

[Bill Esterson]

I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for their comments. I appreciate the Minister’s difficulty in giving fuller answers, and I take her point that it is important not to speak in the middle of negotiations. I am glad that we are in the middle of negotiations and that they have actually started, because the reports lead us to question whether we are even at that stage. Time is rapidly running out—an important point that needs to be reiterated.

The Minister talked about divergence. Is not one of the problems that once we give ourselves the ability to diverge, the assumption is that clarification can be given to enable the import and export of chemicals, or anything containing chemicals, only through having two sets of regulations? That is one of the main reasons why the industry is so concerned about moving away from being part of EU REACH, either as an associate member or through some other close relationship. I encourage the Minister to pursue those avenues, because the chemicals industry and everybody who relies on it need clarity.

Investors need certainty. They are making decisions about where to locate and whether to continue investing in this country or to put alternative arrangements in place, particularly in the EU27, with a cost for jobs and an impact on our economies, especially in the nations and regions of the UK outside London. It is therefore vital that all attention is given to getting this right in a way that protects and enhances our industry, and does not undermine it.

I thank the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) for his comment about potassium dichromate. I hope that was not the cause of the injury he described—it seems a little unlikely. He made some excellent additional points, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for her contribution.

The chemical industry is fundamentally important for pharmaceuticals and across manufacturing. Anything we do to undermine it we do at our peril. It is a high-profile, high-quality and world-leading industry in the UK, and every effort must be made to listen to the concerns being voiced by the relevant organisations. There is unanimity in what is being said across the piece by the industry, trade unions and the environmental lobby—it is almost unheard of. The Government will do well to take that on board. I am glad the Minister said that if a longer timescale is needed to get this right, the time will be taken, but to be frank the industry needs assurances now; it cannot wait to make decisions. I hope the Minister will take on board all the points made this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered regulatory divergence in the UK chemical industry.

17:28

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Written Statements

Wednesday 26 February 2020

Police Covenant for England and Wales

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

Our outstanding police deserve the utmost respect, support and recognition. Brave officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe, demonstrating remarkable courage, sacrifice and public duty.

They face extraordinary pressure as they protect the people they tirelessly serve from terrorists, serious violence and exploitation. Their families too often fear for their safety or are left to pick up the pieces when something goes wrong.

From day one, this Government have put our world-class police first and prioritised their wellbeing. That is why we have committed to introducing a Police Covenant in England and Wales to recognise the exceptional job our frontline officers do in unique and challenging circumstances.

We are determined to give our officers the enhanced support they need, so I have accelerated work on this pledge to protect both them and their loved ones. Our commitment to ensuring our police have the recognition they deserve is absolute, so this Covenant will be enshrined in law. This will leave no room for doubt, creating a statutory duty to do more to support our police.

Police officers and staff are uniquely placed to tell me what they need, so I am today launching a public consultation on what the Police Covenant should look like. This sets out our proposals to help the police in three key areas, to improve their wellbeing, increase their physical protection, and support their families.

We are asking for thoughts on our plans for the principle and scope of the Police Covenant and for any new ideas to be considered as at is developed.

The consultation will be available on www.gov.uk and will be open for eight weeks. A copy of the consultation will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I would urge anyone connected with policing, or who has ideas on how to protect our brave officers, to respond.

Our outstanding police officers embody public service and do not hesitate to run towards danger to keep us safe. Nothing is more important that ensuring they have the support, protection and recognition that they need to do their extraordinary job. This consultation will explore how the Covenant can best deliver that.

I thank Members for their continued engagement on this important issue.

[HCWS127]

Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

Today the Government are setting out their approach to the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy.

The Government have set in train the biggest review of our foreign, defence, security and development policy since the end of the cold war. We need to grasp the opportunities of the next decade and deliver upon the Government’s priorities. This is a defining moment in how the UK relates to the rest of the world and we want to take this unique opportunity to reassess our priorities and our approach to delivering them.

The integrated review will:

Define the Government’s ambition for the UK’s role in the world and the long-term strategic aims for our national security and foreign policy.

Set out the way in which the UK will be a problem-solving and burden-sharing nation, examining how we work more effectively with our allies.

Determine the capabilities we need for the next decade and beyond to pursue our objectives and address the risks and threats we face.

Identify the necessary reforms to Government systems and structures to achieve these goals.

Outline a clear approach to implementation over the next decade and set out how we will evaluate delivery of our aims.

The review will be underpinned by the commitments the Government have already made to continue to exceed the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on defence, to commit 0.7% of GNI to international development and to maintain the nuclear deterrent.

A cross-Whitehall team in the Cabinet secretariat, and a small taskforce in No 10, will report to me and the National Security Council. The review will be closely aligned with this year’s comprehensive spending review but will also look beyond it. The Government will consult with experts beyond Whitehall—in the UK and among our allies—in order to ensure the best possible outcome and to build a strong platform for the decade ahead. We will keep Parliament fully informed during the process as we deliver a review that is in the best interests of the British people across the United Kingdom.

[HCWS126]

Grand Committee

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Grand Committee

Wednesday 26 February 2020

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Grand Committee

Committee (2nd Day)

15:45

Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee and 2nd Report from the Constitution Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, good afternoon. I remind the Committee that, in the event of a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn at the sound of the Division Bell and resume after 10 minutes.

Clause 109: Duty to give notices and statements to the Regulator in respect of certain events

Amendment 27

Moved by

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden]

27: Clause 109, page 95, line 15, at end insert—
“( ) In particular, the declaration of a dividend by the employer is a notifiable event for the purposes of subsection (1) if—(a) the value of the assets of the scheme is less than the amount of the liabilities of the scheme,(b) the amount of the dividend exceeds the annual deficit repair contribution, and(c) the amount of the annual deficit repair contribution is less than 20% of the difference between the value of the assets of the scheme and the amount of the liabilities of the scheme.”

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that this was worth the wait.

Clause 109 allows the Government to prescribe certain events as notifiable events, which must be notified to the regulator in advance of their happening, along with an explanation of how any impact of such an event to the detriment of the scheme is to be mitigated.

Let me start with some general points. Clause 109 is very vague. It does not describe what such notifiable events will be, leaving them to be prescribed at a future date—more delegated powers, if you like. The government briefing paper indicates that they intend such events to include:

“(1) Sale of a material proportion of the business or assets of a scheme employer … (2) Granting of security on a debt to give it priority over debt to the scheme.”

We discussed at length on Monday the level of delegated powers in this Bill, and this is basically another one. However, in the other cases, the delegated powers are there partly because the Government have not yet formulated what they want to do with those regulations or because some consultation is still to take place. Here, the Government know what they intend to do, so I respectfully suggest to the Minister that it would be better if these details could appear on the face of the Bill.

On the specifics of my Amendment 27, the amendment would add the payment of dividends as a notifiable event in certain circumstances. As I have mentioned, the Government intend to make the granting of security in preference to debts to a pension fund notifiable. Granting such security is simply committing to paying money out of the company that cannot then be used to fund the pension deficit, so I confess that I am rather at a loss to understand how this is materially different from paying an excessive dividend, which is the actual payment of money out of a sponsoring company that cannot then be used to pay down a fund deficit. Indeed, paying an excessive dividend is probably worse—once the money is gone, it is gone—yet it is intended that granting a security will be notifiable whereas paying an excessive dividend will not.

There are plenty of examples from the past where companies with large pension deficits failed after paying out excessive amounts to shareholders—Carillion and BHS being just the latest high-profile examples. This is not a theoretical risk; it has happened in the past and will likely happen again, unless we do something about it. We will all be open to criticism if we miss this opportunity to take action to prevent such looting in the future.

The Government argue that stopping a company from paying dividends might damage the company and therefore damage the pension scheme, and I agree. Preventing the payment of reasonable dividends could increase the cost of capital, make raising future finance more difficult and even destabilise the company, all of which would increase the pension fund risk. For most well-run companies with a clear deficit reduction plan, a reasonable dividend will do no material harm, and we should note that most dividends end up in pension funds anyway.

For this reason, while I fully support the intentions behind Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I think that we probably need to find a more balanced way to deal with the very real risk of excessive dividends. This is especially the case in the light of the increased penalties in the Bill. If trustees are asked to approve every dividend, they may simply decide that it is not worth their personal risk to approve any dividend.

As things stand at present, the regulator will not know about excessive dividends until after they have been paid, and even then the onus is on the regulator to spot them. Once paid, it is too late: money is gone and damage is done. It must therefore make sense for the regulator to be notified of excessive dividends in advance, when there is still the opportunity to do something about them.

Amendment 27 attempts to find a balance: it will not prevent normal, reasonable dividends that add no material risk to a pension scheme. It makes dividends notifiable in advance to the regulator, along with an explanation of how any risk would be mitigated, in certain limited circumstances. In defining those, I have tried to apply the concept that the regulator stated in its Annual Funding Statement March 2019, in which it raised concern about excessive dividends:

“Where dividends and other shareholder distributions exceed DRCs”—


deficit reduction contributions—

“we expect a strong funding target and recovery plans to be relatively short”.


Amendment 27 attempts to encapsulate that into the Bill. Dividends will be notifiable in advance if they do not meet the expectation stated by the regulator, if the fund is in deficit, if the dividend is greater than the deficit reduction contribution, and if the deficit repair period is more than five years. Other dividends would not need to be notified. As well as reducing the risk of excessive dividends, this might also have the additional benign effect of encouraging companies that want to pay larger dividends to reduce their deficits to avoid having to make notifications.

I am very open to discussion around alternative approaches to find the right balance. For example, one could potentially add other shareholder distributions, as opposed to just dividends, and the question of whether deficit repair period of five years is right is moot. But I believe strongly that we must take this opportunity to prevent future looting by shareholders of companies with pension scheme deficits. I hope that noble Lords and the Minister will agree that Amendment 27 represents a reasonable balance between, on the one hand, restricting a company’s ability to carry on normal business activities such as paying reasonable dividends and, on the other, reducing the possibility of another Carillion or BHS occurring. I hope that the Minister is able to consider it seriously. I beg to move.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not being here at Second Reading or at the beginning on Monday. The first absence was because I was in hospital; on Monday, I was also speaking in the other debate and so I was hopping between the two.

I have two amendments down, of which Amendment 84 is the first. It is in no way against the sentiment of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux—I obviously did not know that his amendment was going down. Amendment 84 constitutes 50% of a Private Member’s Bill that I tabled at the beginning of this Session—it is a straight take from that. I declare my interest as the president of the British Airline Pilots Association.

My amendment aims to deal with the problem that a lot of trade unionists perceive and has been expressed already—the Philip Green, BHS and Carillion problem. People who have worked very hard and built up pension entitlements see employers favouring dividends to shareholders over looking after the pension scheme that they have agreed to run for the people working for the company. In what one might call a rather crude way, because I did not know where to draw the line, I thought that the simplest thing would be to say that all dividends should be passed by the regulator.

Of course, we then come up against the fact that a number of trustee boards are effectively controlled by the companies. I therefore also put in that the Pensions Regulator would have an independent role anyway, because it would have to approve the dividends. Even if the trustees said, “We think that this is a jolly good thing”, the regulator might then say, “Yes, we agree”, or “No, we do not”. The Pensions Regulator would have a second look at it.

I will be the first to admit that this is not the most skilfully drafted amendment to set the world on fire, but it was put down for the purposes of generating a debate about a problem that needs addressing. That problem is the one already mentioned, of BHS and Carillion; in other words, the problem of irresponsible companies dealing—as many of those working for them would see it—in improper ways with the pension schemes.

There is a bit of danger that people—not in this Room, I am sure, but in society—will say, “Oh, the pension scheme doesn’t matter”. The pension scheme is the forgone wages of the workers; it is not something ethereal or charitable, or an extra on top. This is money that the company has agreed to pay to workers in return for the number of years that they work. It is their money, and companies should not be allowed to behave recklessly with it. That is what is behind this amendment.

As such, I commend it for noble Lords’ consideration, although I would be extremely surprised if the Minister were to get up and say, “Oh yes, that’s what we want”, and accepts it all.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

I would be surprised as well.

My Lords, I support the thinking behind both these amendments. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Balfe, on the excellent way in which they have been introduced. Both amendments allow timely discussion of what is a large, widespread and probably growing problem.

After the publication of TPR’s annual funding review in March 2019, the Investment & Pensions Europe magazine reported that TPR had

“vowed to engage with a number of schemes this year if recovery periods were considered to be ‘unacceptably long’, and warned trustee boards to expect communications in the coming months. … Consultancy firm Hymans Robertson estimated that one in five FTSE 350 companies with DB schemes were at risk of intervention from TPR.”

That is an alarmingly large number.

To understand what TPR means by “communications”, it helps to look at what TPR in its annual funding review states as the three key principles behind its expectations. The first is:

“Where dividends and other shareholder distributions exceed DRCs, we expect a strong funding target and recovery plans to be relatively short.”


The second is:

“If the employer is … weak”


or tending to weak,

“we expect DRCs to be larger than shareholder distributions unless the recovery plan is short and the funding target is strong.”

The third is:

“If the employer is weak and unable to support the scheme, we expect … shareholder distributions to have ceased.”


These are all fine principles—in principle. The real question is how, or whether, they are in fact working. How many FTSE 350 companies has TPR intervened on in the last 12 months, and on how many occasions has it advised against or prevented shareholder distributions? Perhaps the Minister could give us an assessment of TPR’s success in applying its three key principles.

Both amendments in this group offer a simpler and different approach to restrictions on shareholder distributions, but in contrasting strengths. Both have the merit, it seems to me, of making responsible behaviour by employers more likely, and that is no small thing if there are 70 FTSE 350 companies out there needing effective intervention to protect employees’ pension rights. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I think we all understand the reason for these two amendments; whether one of these two or another amendment is to deal with the situation, it needs to be dealt with. I am slightly surprised that neither amendment would actually stop the payment of dividends. I think there is an argument that, where the finances obviously mean that a dividend cannot be afforded, the company should not be allowed to make a dividend payment. I am not sure that Amendment 27 or Amendment 84 addresses the issue as well as it might be addressed. The Government might have another look at what they want to achieve, which should be stopping payments of dividends where they cannot be afforded.

16:00

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I signed the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and agree entirely with the principle of both these amendments. I was particularly drawn to the notion of having a threshold and notification, as provided by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. He circulated it for comment and therefore I signed it after some negotiations with him.

Put simply, if the deficit is large and the effort to close it is too small—smaller than the dividend—the payment of the dividend becomes a notifiable event. The sequel to that would surely be what the noble Lord, Lord Flight, has just pointed out: that it be looked at and perhaps in certain cases, though not all if there are other things that could be taken into account, the dividend payment be stopped. The point is that it is brought to the regulator’s notice, rather than the regulator potentially having to look at an awful lot of dividends and payments being made. Indeed, how will the regulator even find out about them? The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, solves that little loop of how the regulator gets to know about them and has a reasonable number to look at rather than being overwhelmed.

In our negotiations, we tried to find a formula to keep the momentum going to close the gap, even within the five years, as a lot can go wrong in that period. I got as far as something like “the ratio of the dividend to deficit not being greater than the reciprocal of the remaining years and not conveniently commutative”. I concluded that, if I carried on in that way, I would have to put in a job application to Dominic Cummings.

More seriously—I refer here to the helpful meeting I had with the Minister and officials yesterday—I want to see some specific push in the Bill for the regulator to be tougher, including in setting the contribution schedule for paying down the deficits. As has already been explained by other noble Lords, TPR has come forward with a set of principles, but maybe it needs something to back them up and get them over the line in enforcing them.

In the meeting yesterday, it was pointed out that more powers are being given to the regulator in the Bill and that regulations will be forthcoming. That is well and good, but something has to make sure that the regulator is urged to use those powers and to be strong, especially in standing up to larger and more forceful companies and individuals. We know that the record there is not necessarily all that good. The policy impetus needs to come from government and Parliament; otherwise, there may be more power but no enforced policy shift.

We also know that boards will take advice on these kinds of matters and be told what the market norms are, or at least what other companies have done. If the dial is to be shifted, the advice has to be shifted. The way to ensure that advice is shifted is for there to be an indication of the policy in the Bill, because an adviser cannot go against that in their duty to advise the companies.

It was very good to hear that the new offences that we discussed on Monday—which seems a long time ago now—are wide enough to embrace advisers, but you have to get at what their duty is to those they are advising. There are lots of reasons to have something in the Bill to make sure that the principles already outlined by TPR have that backing to be enforced and have that effect. As I said on Monday, it should not be normal to accept overly long continuation of deficits just because a company is well capitalised.

There can be many claims on and reasons for that extra capitalisation—there may be lots of tentative reasons why they need it. There might be plans to spend it to buy another company. All kinds of things could be going on, and what looks like a good capital margin could actually be shoring up many other things as well as the pension deficit. What is the excuse to the Pensions Regulator? What excuse might be given to other sources? Some of the clever analysts may work out what is going on; the ordinary investor and the ordinary pensioner is unlikely to do so. Therefore, I support the principle of both the amendments: something should go in the Bill to push or shore up the Pensions Regulator in its actions.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly—I have added my name to one of the amendments—to support the concept that has been so well explained already by noble Lords and to echo the warnings that this is a very important time in our defined benefit pension system, as we still have employers attached to schemes and, in some cases, members contributing. Some schemes are still not completely closed. Once a scheme has closed to new members, it will not be too long before it closes to new accruals and it will effectively be in run-off. While there are still employers with an interest in the scheme and before we get to the period, which will come in the next 10 years or so, when there is no economic interest between the employer and the scheme and it is seen merely as a major liability—with more and more companies looking for ways to get around the deficits—now is the time to be collecting as much money as possible.

Obviously, one does not want to damage the ongoing viability of the employer, but there needs to be more recognition of the fact that the pension scheme is a debtor of the company—not all companies see it in that way—and the choice between dividend payment and deficit funding should not be just between the interest of shareholders and the interest of pension scheme members. The pension deficit has people’s lives attached, so there is a higher importance here.

When one looks at the provisions of the Companies Act 2006, in particular with reference to Amendment 84, Section 830 says that a company should not be permitted to pay out a dividend if it has not made sufficient profit to cover its costs or if there are losses in the company. What is not explicit, but is made explicit in the amendment, which was originally part of my noble friend Lord Balfe’s Private Member’s Bill, is that the accounting measure of the pension deficit does not reflect the actuarial reality as estimated by a scheme actuary, or perhaps by trustees, of the true scale of the obligation—in other words, potential losses—that the company faces. Therefore, redefining the accounting measure and taking account of the actuarial measure would put the payment of dividend on a different plane. That is to be reflected in Section 830A, which would be added after Section 830, in terms of justification for payment of a dividend that might otherwise look viable.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister says about this and whether the sort of concerns that have been expressed are already dealt with somewhere else. A very good point has been made.

I want to ask a question on Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. He talks about the value of the assets of the scheme, and my noble friend Lady Altmann made this point; there is a big difference between an actuarial valuation and an insurance valuation in a scheme. If you were to base this on an insurance valuation, you would catch quite a lot of pension schemes, including those which probably could pay some dividends. I was a little concerned about that, and I would like some clarification when we come to wind up on what is intended.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the principle behind Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, but equally I have sympathy with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Flight. When it comes to dividends, the mischief may be done regarding money leaving the sponsoring employer’s company before the regulator can mobilise its full armoury of powers. This is particularly true where the dividends are paid to parent companies overseas, where pursuing a legal route by the regulator may be difficult, even more so if we leave the EU, because jurisdictions will change—except possibly foreign-owned UK banks, where in fact the PRA has the power to intrude pre-emptively on dividends going over to the parent company. To that extent, there is an element of precedent, and the PRA would take into account the debt in the pension fund in considering the sustainability issue when it strikes a view on dividends paid to the parent company.

I give credit to the proactive approach that the regulator is now taking to red flag where there is a kind of big ratio between dividends and deficit payment. However, that must be retrospective. The issue is capturing that mischief at the point when the money leaves the company; I am particularly concerned about where it is a foreign-owned company. Therefore, if some way could be found—perhaps by the regulator working with the department—to embrace dividends in some way in the notifiable events regime, that would be helpful. It is a problem, and once the money is gone, it is difficult to chase it, particularly when you have to go to jurisdictions where the power of TPR may not be strong.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Committee should thank the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Balfe, for having enabled this debate. One gets a high quality of debate on pension Bills; it is very well informed indeed.

We have been left with three questions. Is there a problem? Is it getting worse? And what are we going to do about it? I think there is a pretty much unanimous view around the Committee that we have a problem and that it is not going to disappear. As more DB schemes close, they will pay out more in pensioner payments, leaving them less to invest and reap returns, so they will start de-risking their remaining investments. This is the moment we have to address that.

We know that there is a problem. As my noble friend Lady Drake said at Second Reading, the Work and Pensions Select Committee report highlighted that half of FTSE 350 companies paid out 10 times more to shareholders than to their DB pension schemes. However, in some ways the key issue is the ratio, which was touched on by a couple of noble Lords. TPR certainly mentioned it in its annual funding statement, and it drilled down in its Tranche 14 Analysis for DB pension schemes, published last May. It looked at the FTSE 350 companies that sponsor DB schemes as the main or primary sponsoring employer and said that it found that

“The median ratio of dividends to DRCs”—


deficit repair contributions—

“has increased from 9.2:1 in 2012 to 14.2:1”,

in the latest figures available, so it has gone from nine to 14 between 2012 and last year. Clearly, this is going in the wrong direction. It noted:

“This is mainly driven by the significant increase in aggregate dividends over the period, without a similar increase in contributions.”


Therefore we have a problem. The regulator itself said in its last funding statement that it remains

“concerned about the disparity between dividend growth and stable DRCs”,

and it highlighted recent corporate failures. If the regulator is concerned, then the Minister should be concerned.

The Minister’s argument may be that the regulator already runs an internal control system, where it flags high dividend payments. A number of noble Lords, however, made the point that it is retrospective and that, depending on the valuation, it may not pick up all the areas where there is a problem. Noble Lords also cited TPR’s funding statement, which set out the key principles behind its expectations about what should happen when an employer is weak, the ratio is high, or the employer cannot support the scheme.

Can the Minister assure us that there are not more cases coming in with high ratios and long recovery plans? The TPR says it is going to stop that. Is it not a problem anymore, or is there a target for when it will not be? TPR could refuse to agree a funding strategy for a scheme in various ways but, as my noble friend Lady Drake pointed out so clearly, that is, first, retrospective; secondly, what happens if the money goes overseas? I would be grateful if the Minister could pick that up.

16:15

We all think there is a problem; the question is how we go about addressing it. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said that his was a strong way to attack it, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has come up with the notifiable regime as a way to do it. Whatever the Government are going to do, they need to do something about this.

Perhaps I could highlight some areas where action is needed, where dividends are high relative to deficit payments in DB schemes. There are particular circumstances: for example, where there is a real risk that money in dividends is an effective form of employer debt avoidance; where it downgrades the status of the pension scheme as a creditor to which the employer owes money; or where it raises the risk that the dividend payments are at a level that they could materially threaten the strength of the employer, which will in turn risk the strength of the scheme. We know that this is a problem because the regulator has had to deal with real, high-profile cases.

The questions for the Minister are: does she accept that there is a problem, and does she agree with the regulator that it is getting worse? If the answer to both those questions is yes, what is she going to do about it? Does she like the way forward proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, or does it feel too intrusive? Would she prefer that of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, or does she think that would not work? That leaves her with only two possibilities. One is that she thinks that the powers the regulator has now, or will have soon, are enough. In which case, can she tell us how that will solve the problems described here? The other is that she has another way of dealing with it, which we do not yet know about. Which of those is it?

I urge the Minister to think hard about this because if the next scandal, one comparable to BHS or Carillion, turns out to be a company that shipped a load of money out the door just before it went down, it will not look very good if the Minister has had the opportunity to tell us how to solve it and has been unable to do so.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lords for tabling these amendments and all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It would be helpful to consider these amendments together, as they seek to address the payment of dividends when a defined benefit pension scheme is in deficit. One amendment seeks to prevent the payment of a dividend unless signed off by the trustees and the regulator; the other would require the sponsoring employers of pension schemes to submit a notice and accompanying statement to the regulator and to trustees when the employer declares a dividend in certain circumstances.

I do not think that the amendment to the Companies Act would have the effect that I believe is intended, as there are various technical problems with it. I will not go into these now, as it is more important to address the principles. The Government agree that defined benefit pension schemes in deficit should get a fair proportion of the resources available to employers.

The Government believe that they are taking a proportionate approach. The problem is not the payment of dividends; it is that some companies do not pay enough into their defined benefit pension schemes as part of the recovery plan when the scheme is in deficit. We believe we can address this problem proportionately without inhibiting reasonable dividend payments, which are a legitimate and essential part of normal business activity. We inhibit investment in UK business at our peril. A strong, profitable employer is the best possible protection for pension scheme members.

In addition, I should point out that pension schemes are also major investors. They receive significant dividends, and inhibiting or blocking these payments would impact their income and funding position.

The Pensions Regulator can, and does, take action to ensure that sponsors treat their schemes fairly. For example, in one case, a defined benefit scheme is now better funded after an upfront payment of £10 million, a reduction in the recovery plan length from 13 to seven years, annual deficit recovery payments of £3.7 million and a commitment to stop dividend payments for six years.

Information about dividends paid by these companies may be needed, but this is already available for public companies and can be obtained for private ones. The regulator takes this into consideration when it is looking at risks to a pension scheme. It would be disproportionate and unnecessary to require the sponsoring employers of pension schemes to submit a notice and accompanying statement to the regulator when the employer declares a dividend. Provided that a suitable recovery plan is in place, and the employer has the resources to pay the additional deficit repair contributions agreed, the company should be able to choose what it does with the remainder of the distributable reserves—it is rightly subject to business priorities.

But we do need to do more to ensure that the regulator can take a tough line where needed. That is why we are taking a power in this Bill to set out more clearly in secondary legislation what is required for an appropriate recovery plan. The secondary legislation will be informed by the regulator’s consultation on its revised funding code, and will work in tandem with it. The code will set clear expectations on what is an acceptable recovery plan, include guidelines on recovery plan length and structure, and support the regulator in enforcing these standards.

I turn now to some of the specific questions raised. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked why the requirement under new Section 69A for a notice and accompanying statement cannot be included the Bill. New Section 69A is intended to give the Pensions Regulator information about events that pose greatest risk to pension schemes. The range of events for which a notice and accompanying statement must be given will be varied and will likely change in time. As such, the Government consider this to be a matter that is appropriate for secondary legislation. By setting out the range of events that are subject to the notification requirement in regulations, this enables new events to be added, or existing events to be removed, in order to keep pace with changing business practices.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked: why do we not propose to require a notice and accompanying statement when a dividend is paid? Dividends paid by companies with a pension scheme surplus, or those where an appropriate recovery plan is in place and deficit repair contributions are being paid, are unlikely to have adverse impact on the scheme or require any mitigations. A notice and accompanying statement about dividend payments by these companies would be unnecessary, and handling this information would be an ineffective use of the Pensions Regulator’s resources. Instead, the regulator will focus on companies where schemes are in deficit and where an appropriate recovery plan is not in place. Information about dividends paid by these companies may be needed, but this is already available for public companies and can be obtained by private ones.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked: if dividends are not limited, is there not a risk that all the money will be gone before the needs of the scheme are considered? The trustee and sponsoring employer agree an appropriate funding target and deficit repair contributions to eliminate any deficit over an appropriate period. If an appropriate recovery plan is not in place, the regulator has powers to impose a schedule of contributions. Provided that an appropriate recovery plan is in place and the agreed deficit repair contributions are being paid, it is right that how other resources are used is a matter of business priorities. It would not be helpful or proportionate for the payment of dividends to be notified to the regulator.

Of course, there is a risk that excessive dividend payments could be made, which could result in the sponsor being unable to meet its obligations to make payments as part of the recovery plan, but this is very much the exception rather than the rule. We think that intervention to prevent dividend payments in some circumstances poses a greater risk of inhibiting investment in UK business and that our approach can deter inappropriate dividend payments and put things right if that happens.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, requested information about the regulator’s success in engaging with employers, and we will write to the noble Lord with that information.

[Baroness Drake]

Does the Minister accept that a regime for notifying dividends is not necessarily the same as stopping the payment of dividends?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I will carry on and answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Flight, and then I will answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake.

The noble Lord, Lord Flight, asked what the Government are doing to reform the UK’s dividend regime. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is considering the case for requiring companies to disclose information about their distributable reserves from which dividends are paid. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has been asked to provide technical advice and options for doing so. It is expected to report shortly. Sir Donald Brydon’s recent independent review into the quality and effectiveness of audit recommended that directors make a statement that the proposed dividends would not threaten the existence of the company and are within known distributable reserves, and, in some circumstances, that the distributable reserves should be subject to audit. Further consultation on this is expected later this year. The department has welcomed the Investment Association’s recommendation to companies that they should publish a dividend policy setting out the board’s long-term approach to making decisions on the amount and timing of return to shareholders.

In answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, yes, notifying is different from stopping. We do not want to stop them; we want to focus on ensuring that an appropriate recovery plan is in place. Things can be put right.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked how the Pensions Regulator knows what resources the employer has and whether a recovery plan is appropriate. In assessing the appropriateness of a recovery plan, the Pensions Regulator looks at the strength of the employer covenant, which is a measure of the ability of a scheme’s employer to support the scheme now and in future. The regulator takes account of a range of employer-specific information, including underlying trading strength and trajectory, profits, cash flows, debt structure, market risks and opportunities, asset strength, and insolvency risk. This can come from a range of sources including statutory accounts, publicly available information such as credit ratings, market analysts’ views, sectoral analysis and analysis performed by the trustees, the employer or its adviser. The regulator will also focus on how a company uses the cash flow it generates to assess whether a scheme is receiving an appropriate and fair share of these amounts. Greater clarity will be provided through the provisions we are proposing in the Bill, and the regulator intends to set clearer guidelines on recovery plan length and structures for schemes in different circumstances. This will help to improve regulatory grip and make enforcement easier.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, also asked how we will ensure that companies with significant available resources address defined benefit pension scheme funding shortfalls more quickly. Most employers do the right thing and treat their schemes fairly, but we know that this best practice is not universal and that some employers are not devoting a fair proportion of available resources to paying down deficits. We are determined to do something about this.

16:30

The Pensions Regulator already takes action to ensure that sponsoring employers treat their defined benefit schemes fairly, but with the help of the measures in this Bill, the regulator can and will be tougher. The regulator is consulting on a revised funding code, which will set clear expectations on what recovery plan lengths and structures are acceptable, and we are taking a power to set out more clearly in secondary legislation what is required for an appropriate recovery plan. We will work closely with the regulator during the consultation and ensure that our regulations support its ability to take action against employers that do not pay a reasonable proportion of their available resources to bringing down any pension scheme deficit.

In the absence of detailed evidence as to why it is essential in the circumstances of the employer, the regulator is unlikely to recognise a need to pay dividends as reasonable justification for an overly long recovery plan. Where an appropriate recovery plan is not agreed, the regulator will consider using its powers to impose a suitable recovery plan, so that the scheme gets a fair share of the available resources.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, asked whether we should prevent dividend payments going to shareholders outside the UK. According to the latest ONS figures, nearly 54% of the value of shares in UK quoted companies are held by investors outside the UK. There are no grounds for treating overseas and domestic shareholders differently. The UK would be a significantly less attractive economy in which to invest if foreign shareholders enjoyed lesser rights than UK shareholders.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about the ratio of dividends to DRCs. I am advised that we will write to her on that.

I hope noble Lords will recognise that the measures I have outlined to strengthen funding, which are to be found elsewhere in this Bill, are the best way to tackle employers that do not direct an appropriate proportion of available resources to managing the pension scheme deficit. As such, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I want to pursue a couple of points. I am a simple soul compared to many around the table who can come back to the noble Baroness on the detail. However, I think that she has just said in summary that the regulator knows that some companies have a problem in this area but feels that, by and large, the current regime gives it the tools to deal with it; where there is a gap, it will deal with it by secondary legislation, which will be clearer about the requirements for an appropriate recovery plan; and that anything above that, such as notification, will be disproportionate and unnecessary. I invite her to correct me if I am wrong.

I will bring her back to what is missing from that statement. First, it is pre-emptive and proactive in nature. Neither I nor the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said that separate rules should be set up for overseas shareholders or companies with them. We were making the point that one of the reasons that it would be useful to have a notification requirement, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, would be so that money would not be taken out and the regulator would not then have to go after it—rather, it would get advance notice that this was going to happen and could see whether it was appropriate. The point about overseas companies was simply that, if money goes overseas, it is much harder and more expensive to get it back if the regulator goes after it.

I come back to my question: why do the Government not believe that it would be useful to have some requirement that companies should notify the regulator if they declare a dividend where there was a DRC in place? Why is that a problem?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

Requiring the payment of dividends to be reported is not necessarily very helpful to the regulator. It is likely to inhibit legitimate business processes without getting more resources for the scheme. We need to take a proportionate approach. We think that the priority is to ensure that a suitable recovery plan is put in place that takes account of the full range of circumstances of the employer and the scheme.

Trustees and the regulator need to look at a whole range of demands on the employer’s resources. Dividends are just one of these. Others may include maintenance of its business, and investments in its sustainable growth and debt repayments. All of these need to be considered in deciding whether a recovery plan is fair.

The Pensions Regulator scrutinises all valuations and recovery plans submitted, assesses the key risks, and assesses whether further engagement and potential enforcement action is required. Measures in the Bill will help to clarify exactly what is required for an appropriate recovery plan. Along with the regulator’s revised funding code, these measures will make it clear to trustees and employers what is expected, and will support the regulator in taking enforcement action where necessary. Provided that an appropriate recovery plan is in place, how the employer chooses to spend the remainder of its free resources is rightly a matter of business priority.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to the debate and cannot help but think that this is not sufficiently fleet of foot to prevent those such as BHS and Carillion—there is recent past history on this—which were basically giant Ponzi schemes towards the end, where they were paying dividends instead of funding the pension scheme, had deliberately obscure governance rules and left their pensioners bereft of a considerable proportion of their money. Is this system sufficiently fleet of foot? Would it take account of a company which then decided to sell itself to another person for, for the sake of argument, £1? Would it help to cover the situations covered by the amendments? It does not sound to me as though we are doing anything different from just saying, “Everybody has the right to the appropriate dividends.” How do we know that those dividends are appropriate, and how do we have power for the regulator to ensure that there are not some really bad guys out there?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

The noble Baroness makes some valid points. We consider that dividends are paid at a point in time. The regulator needs to form a picture of the employers’ ability to pay and, for a period in the future, needs to see the whole picture.

[Baroness Sherlock]

Can we try to narrow the point of difference? The Minister is often being given briefings which cover points with which no one disagrees. To interpret her last answer to me, the Government are saying that they do not want every company to tell them why they are paying a dividend because there will be too much information and it will take too much resource to process, rather than focusing on things that raise a particular problem. However, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, does not suggest that; it simply suggests that, in some very specific circumstances, there should be a notification of a declaration to pay a dividend. He suggested that those circumstances are that there will be a dividend, there is a deficit on the scheme, the amount of the dividend exceeds the DRC and a ratio between the different on the valuation. If the Government think that those are the wrong criteria, they could suggest alternative criteria. I am trying to get to the bottom of what is the problem of saying, “In certain circumstances where there could be a risk, it will be helpful to have a requirement on companies to notify the regulator as part of the notifiable events regime so that it can then do something about those risk situations”? Why is that a problem?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

The last word I would use to describe the noble Baroness is simple; that is not the case. She and other noble Lords have raised some interesting, valid and appropriate points on this issue. I believe that the best way that we can delve down into this and, I hope, give the comfort that they are looking for, is to meet to discuss it outside the Committee, which we are happy to do.

[Baroness Drake]

I would just say that my argument is not with the noble Baroness personally; she will be provided with the arguments to answer the points we are asking. The argument she put was that the recovery plan would be the route through which one would deal with an excessive payout of dividend, but the recovery plan is also based on an assumption about the strength of the sponsoring employer covenant. If, after that recovery plan is settled, there is a huge dividend payout—particularly to an overseas parent—which impacts the strength of that covenant, I cannot believe that the regulator would sit there and say, “We will wait until the next actuarial valuation and the new recovery plan before we act”. It would act: it has a range of powers to act straightaway. If there is a material change in the constituent elements that went into the recovery plan, the regulator has to act. A major excess of dividend payment from the sponsoring employer could materially impact the covenant strength. That is already in legislation. We just want to capture the impact of the high levels of dividend payment.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank the noble Baroness for the points she has made. I think we should put this into the conversation that we will have to try to give answers which give noble Lords the comfort they need. My officials will call a meeting, and we will look at Hansard and try our very best to answer all the specific questions and allow further debate to resolve these issues.

[Lord Balfe]

May I also be included in this meeting?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

Of course.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is similar to the point that I was going to make. Some of the answers the Minister gave, in particular to my questions, were good and comprehensive, but they rely on having an appropriate plan in place. The point is that there are times when the appropriate plan is no longer appropriate, and at that point it all falls apart. I think what the Minister has said is that in regulations there will be things that will allay some of our fears, but it would be nice to have something about that in the Bill, because otherwise we are taking it on trust. It is not that we inherently mistrust the Minister or her officials. Of course there have been previous framework provisions that have been remarkably empty of policy, but that does not make it correct. The Government and this Parliament make policy. Regulators do not make policy; they shy away from it. There is no greater making of policy than putting it in the Bill.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I would also like to be involved in the further talks. We have to try to find a way of dealing with big risks between recovery plans without gungeing up the system for the regulator so that it cannot focus on what matters rather than on what does not matter with the bureaucracy overtaking the objective.

[Lord Sharkey]

I also want to be invited. A critical feature of the discussion is the effectiveness of TPR. When we have the meeting—to which almost everybody seems to be invited—it would be very helpful to have a detailed discussion on what assessment the Government have made of the performance of TPR against its three key principles, certainly in the past year and perhaps slightly longer. I know the Minister gave an example of TPR being effective, but that was one example and I would like to see more data on why we should have faith in TPR’s ability to police this scheme or any scheme.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

We will pass a piece of paper around, and if noble Lords will write their names on it, we will make sure they are all invited.

I am sorry if I am repeating myself. I am well aware of the expertise of noble Lords in this Room who work in the industry. It is highly regarded and highly respected. The message in the points that noble Lords are making is received. We will meet to talk about them in more depth. That will give officials more time to reflect on the very detailed questions that noble Lords have asked, collect data, answer some of the exam questions and try to come to a place where we all understand and agree on what we are trying to do. We take it in that spirit. In that spirit, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

16:45

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this excellent debate and the Minister for agreeing to meet with us—given the number of us wanting to attend that meeting, I slightly wonder whether we should not adjourn and have it now.

This debate has demonstrated a very clear feeling that there is a potential problem here and, as I said in introducing the debate, I have quite a lot of sympathy with the idea that getting too heavy-handed could damage the companies and notifying everything could clog up the Pensions Regulator. I do not disagree with any of that.

The noble Baroness mentioned that this risk is the exception; we are talking about the exception here and trying to make sure that it does not happen. There is a balance to be found. My amendment may well not be the right balance, but it was an attempt to find some sort of balance or at least to work our way towards one. There is also a danger of overcomplicating.

When we meet, we need to sit down and work out where that balance lies, and this issue needs to be dealt with in the legislation. It is too important. We cannot afford another BHS or Carillion situation. However, on that basis and looking forward to the meeting, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

Clause 109 agreed.

Clause 110: Interviews

Amendment 28

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

28: Clause 110, page 97, line 2, at end insert—
“72B Provision of information: further provision(1) The Regulator may, by notice in writing, require the trustees of a scheme to which section 35 of the Pensions Act 1995 applies to provide information as set out in subsection (5).(2) A notice under subsection (1) may include a requirement for information—(a) to be disclosed to the Regulator on a periodic basis, and(b) in respect of specified periods of time.(3) Where the provision of information is required by a notice under subsection (1), the information must be provided in such a manner, at such a place and within such a period as may be specified in the notice.(4) The Regulator must publish information provided in respect of the provisions set out in subsection (5) on its website within one month of receiving it in a form that is searchable and easily accessible.(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), information to be provided on request of the Regulator is any information set out in—(a) regulation 29A of the Occupational and Personal Pension Scheme (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2013 (publishing charges and transaction costs and other relevant information), and(b) paragraph 30 of Schedule 3 of the Occupational and Personal Pension Scheme (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2013.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a reporting duty on the Pensions Regulator to publish statements of investment principles (SIPs) under section 35 of the Pensions Act 1995. The amendment would place a requirement on the Pensions Regulator to create a SIP repository, accessible to the public through its website, so that all scheme members could check their scheme’s investment strategy.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 28 in my name in this group and will speak to Amendment 92, to which I have added my name. I also support a number of the other amendments. The noble Lords who tabled them will obviously rise shortly to expound on their own aspects of this issue.

The main area this group deals with is the environmental impacts that pension funds can have. We have £1.3 trillion of pension assets; they can help tackle climate change. Our country will host the COP 26 in December, at which we will have the opportunity to show world leadership in our thinking on climate change and policies to address these issues.

Climate change, as most of us believe, poses a potentially material risk to pensions and financial assets. The insurer Aviva estimates that investors could lose £2.7 trillion from investment value globally due to climate change. I am delighted that the Government have tabled amendments giving Ministers a power to require pension schemes to disclose how they manage climate-related financial risks in line with the more detailed, granular requirements of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.

I support those amendments, but the Government have said that they will require only large schemes to report in line with the TCFD disclosure requirements. They have not said what “large” means, but I assume it will probably not include schemes with fewer than 5,000 members, for example. These smaller schemes still need to manage the risks to savers’ pensions potentially posed by climate change. Amendment 28 is therefore calling for the Pensions Regulator to create a compliance framework based on a public register of schemes and ESG—environmental, social and governance —investment policies.

In October 2018, the Government changed the law to require UK pension scheme trustees to prepare a policy on how they manage the financially material risks arising from issues such as climate change. Trustees are required to state these policies in their statement of investment principles, a statutorily mandated document which all schemes are required to have. Trustees should have updated these statements by 1 October 2019. Some schemes were required to publish them at that point.

However, the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association has reviewed—with the help of the Pensions Regulator—the policies of a representative sample of these UK trust-based pensions. For those schemes, representing 3 million or so savers, its report found clear evidence that “large scale non-compliance” with this requirement exists and that trustees had not been publishing their statement of investment principles. Two-thirds of the schemes in its sample had not published, and of those which had the policies were pretty thin and noncommittal.

It is not exactly clear why trustees are failing to disclose and comply with this new law. The UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association has suggested that it may be because smaller schemes—schemes with fewer than 5,000 members, let us say—do not have a website, so the administrative burden of publishing these statements and complying with the law has proved overly taxing for them. There has therefore been a recommendation that the Pensions Regulator should be given a duty to obtain these statements of investment principles and publish them on its own website in a central registry. Amendment 28 seeks to insert this into the Bill.

If the Pensions Regulator has the power to obtain and publish these statements of investment principles, it will obviously be able to remove the administrative burden from the schemes. It will also give the regulator a much better ability to monitor compliance with these requirements. It will improve the transparency and scrutiny of the schemes’ policies to manage these environmental, social and governance risks, as well as providing the industry with a resource to find out about and share best practice. Importantly, it would allow scheme members to see their own schemes’ investment policies. These are the reasons why I urge the Minister to consider whether we might be able to insert this provision into the Bill.

The notion of a public register of these statements of investment principles and implementation statements could be a powerful way to drive up trustee awareness of action on the risks arising from climate change. It would allow monitoring and scrutiny of what these schemes currently do better to educate those which may not be compliant—some of these laggards, perhaps —about what the leading trustees and schemes are doing. Campaign groups could scrutinise this. Ministers could also scrutinise and report on the issues that are so important and potentially powerful in allowing our country to be a leader in this field, given the size of our pension assets. They dwarf those of most other countries, particularly in Europe. It could help to fill an important hole in the Government’s overall climate change strategy.

The Government are of course right to mandate that the large schemes are going to do this. As I say, I support the government amendments, but we should also bear in mind that this is a question of protecting all pension savers’ money—not just in the large schemes but in all schemes—from the risk of climate change. Therefore to expose workers in small companies or small schemes to more financial risks from climate change does not seem an effective way forward. We have an opportunity in the Bill to make a real difference. There is scope to help the pensions industry be better able to address the financial risks of climate change and to be better aligned with the interests of savers, who will increasingly be concerned about these issues. This is an opportunity to put our pension funds and pension industry on a more sustainable footing and, if noble Lords will forgive this play on words, it can also include sustainable investments in relation to climate and environmental sustainability.

I have added my name to Amendment 92 in the name of the Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I support Amendments 75 and 89, which talk about requiring schemes to align their portfolios with the Paris agreement objectives. The UK Government need to ensure that pension investment portfolios are aligned with, for example, the UK’s emission reduction targets. Pension funds also need to act to protect their beneficiaries’ savings from these financial risks. For example, research from the leading consultancy Mercer has found that for nearly all asset classes, regions and timeframes, a 2 degree increase in global temperature scenario would lead to much better projected returns than if there was a 3 or 4 degree increase in global temperatures. The requirements in these amendments would not necessarily involve disinvestment from any particular sector; it does not direct how the trustees must invest. It would involve trustees in assessing whether their assets in their portfolios have a clear strategy for, for example, aligning their business model with the UK emissions reduction timeline and taking appropriate action. That would also give the companies clear incentives to develop Paris-compliant business models and invest in low-carbon opportunities, making it much easier for the Government to achieve their own targets.

Amendment 92, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would help to facilitate this by requiring pension schemes to report against the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures framework. The amendment would ensure that all pension schemes have to report against the same frameworks, so there is commonality here, and, as I say, it does not dictate that schemes have to pursue a particular investment or disinvestment strategy. It would be left to the trustees. Operational independence, which is, of course, an important part of our system for trustees, is maintained. However, the requirement to disclose how the trustees are mitigating climate risk should also help to drive up standards of trusteeship, as well as protecting these assets and enhancing the UK’s global role in tackling climate change and other related issues.

I beg to move, and I look forward to the debate, other noble Lords’ contributions and the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 28, which the Baroness, Lady Altmann, has just cogently explained to the Committee. I will speak to that, as well as to my own Amendment 52, about the information available for dashboards. I shall also speak to Amendments 74, 75, 76 and 92, which, as the noble Baroness mentioned, seek to strengthen the Government’s welcome Amendment 73, which recognises the salience of climate change to pension funds and to the Bill. I remind the Committee of my interests as co-chair of Peers for the Planet, and that my son works for Make My Money Matter.

17:00

The rationale behind all the amendments to which I am speaking relates to the climate crisis and the ways in which it needs to be taken into account in pensions legislation and regulation. There are three main areas of focus and salience for doing this. The first is to ensure transparency, so that individuals have the relevant information and therefore the choice over, and power to influence the behaviour of, the funds in which they are invested, on which they will depend for their pensions now or in the future. There is much survey evidence to show that this is a priority for savers and that there is an appetite for environmentally responsible investment. In an article in the Telegraph, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Thérèse Coffey, and the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, said:

“People must be able to see and understand whether their funds are invested in line with the values that they hold.”

The second driver of these amendments is to protect the interests of savers by shining a spotlight on how effectively scheme managers and pension funds are planning for, and mitigating the risks of, the effects of climate change. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, there have been a large number of surveys and reports, such as from Mercer and Aviva, as well as the research by JP Morgan reported in the papers this weekend, which paint a grim picture of the effects on financial institutions and the economy if measures are not taken. Climate change and the threats to the economy that it poses are financially material issues for funds. It is clearly part of the fiduciary duty of pension fund trustees to act in the long-term interests of investors. This is fundamental information, which should be available in dashboards and other areas.

The third element behind these amendments is to encourage pension funds to use their huge economic power to play their part in meeting our 2050 targets and in transforming our economy to thrive in a low and zero-carbon environment. UK pension funds hold more than £1.6 trillion in assets. The size and influence of pension schemes mean they have a vital role to play in ensuring that the UK meets its climate commitments, as the Environmental Audit Committee noted in its Greening Finance report.

Those are the rationales behind the amendments. On Amendment 28, as the noble Baroness said, the report by the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association showed that two-thirds of schemes were not actually publishing their SIP. The proposal in the amendment to set up a registry—which has been done before with the modern slavery registry—is a good example of how this could work. It would ensure that all schemes would be covered and that all ESG, not just climate change, would be covered.

I would also support Amendment 36 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which goes slightly wider by ensuring that implementation statements and chairs’ statements would be made available to the Pensions Regulator.

My Amendment 52 would ensure that consumer dashboards include information on how pension schemes’ investments align with the UK Stewardship Code and the objectives of the Paris agreement. As well as supporting transparency, there is a strong interest among savers in environment, social and governance issues, so the provision of greater information can also help to drive an increase in savings. DfID research into people’s views on sustainable investment has shown that more than two-thirds of UK savers would like their investments to be responsible and impactful. Aviva, which has done much work in this area, found that 57% of people expect ESG or ethical investment options in a workplace pension and 30% say that pension providers are responsible for making sure that their savings are used for good, yet most pension savers are invested in non-ESG funds. Most savers are unaware of how their pension savings are invested and of the impact that they can have, and approximately 97% of savers are invested in the default funds, which invariably take little account of ESG and are far from Paris aligned. Dashboards will be extremely significant as a portal for savers, investors and pensioners to know what is happening to their money, and it is therefore important that they have a full range of information on these issues.

Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has tabled Amendments 67A and 67B in this area, and I support them.

My last set of amendments—Amendments 74, 75, 76 and 92—is aimed at enhancing and strengthening government Amendment 73. I pay tribute to the Minister for instant action. The original Bill made no mention of climate risk, and it was pleasing to see that the Government issued this amendment to insert a new clause to ensure that there will be secondary legislation to create an oversight, disclosure and compliance regime, in line with the TCFD recommendations, for occupational pension schemes in relation to climate risk. However, the Minister will not be surprised that, having given something and opened the door, I will try to push it a little further.

At the moment, Amendment 73 relates to occupational pension schemes. Amendments 74 and 76 cover all pension schemes. I would be grateful to know from the Minister the number of people who would be excluded under the Government’s amendment rather than my amendments, which would include everybody, and the rationale for excluding those people.

Amendment 75 is important, as it would ensure that the proposed regime imposes requirements on trustees or scheme managers to ensure that schemes are aligned with the objectives of the Paris agreement to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2 degrees. I think we all know by now that what we are talking about is 1.5 degrees. The UK has set itself a clear target; we have COP 26 this year; and we are aiming to be a beacon of achievement in many areas. This is one area where we could shine as that beacon. Not to align the pensions industry with the Government’s overall objectives is to miss an opportunity.

Lastly, my Amendment 92 seeks to ensure that there is a clearer timetable for consulting on the implementation of TCFD recommendations. We now have a clear timetable in statute by which we must reach net zero, so we need a correspondingly clear timetable for aligning the finance sector with the Paris objectives. We, and others such as ShareAction, believe that new regulations can and should be introduced by next year, so my amendment would set a timetable both for the commencement of the consultation and for the Government’s report on the results of that consultation.

There are other amendments in this group aimed at the same objectives. I will be interested to hear what other members of the Committee have to say and the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Hayman, for their powerful, comprehensive introductions to this group. I shall try not to repeat what they said, which covered much of the ground that I would have covered. I shall speak specifically to Amendments 36, 67A, 67B and 97, which are tabled in my name, and to Amendment 52, to which I have attached my name. Just to make life even simpler for novice amenders like me, Amendments 67A and 67B were previously Amendments 55 and 56. For simplicity for anyone who is looking at the old paperwork, Amendment 55, now Amendment 67A, refers to environmental and social governance, and Amendment 56, now Amendment 67B, asks for the views of beneficiaries to be taken into account. I hope that makes things clearer.

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said that she believes people believe in the climate change crisis. I would go somewhat further and say that I know there is a climate emergency and I think the world knows there is a climate emergency and has acknowledged that through international declarations. I also stress the point that both noble Baronesses referred to previously: that as host of COP26, we have a particular responsibility to lead the world this year in measures such as this.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, Amendment 36 essentially mirrors Amendment 28. The drafting is different, as is the insertion point. I will leave it to those who know a great deal more about legal details than I do to work out which might be preferable. However, proposed new subsection (6B) goes further, because as well as having a statement of investment principles—principles are great, but what matters is what is actually happening—it requires the most recent version of the implementation statement, which states how the SIP is being implemented, and the most recent version of the statement of the chair, who is accountable for what is happening. Will the Minister consider this as a possibility?

Amendment 67A covers much the same ground as Amendment 52, which was focused on the climate emergency, but goes further by talking about environmental, social and governance factors. I am not sure how many noble Lords were at the Fairtrade Fortnight event down the corridor, but I am sure it was not just the really delicious tea, coffee and hot chocolate that produced a packed room. There is grave concern about poverty, hunger, access to education and the situation of women and girls around the world, and the way in which investment can make a difference. This amendment seeks to ensure knowledge about what people’s money is doing to address those issues; it is broader than looking at just the climate emergency.

Further to that, the world is having a major conference on biodiversity and addressing the nature crisis, the accompanying crisis to climate change. We cannot afford to simply look at the climate emergency on its own. We have to look at the broader framework. The world is doing this through the globally agreed framework of the sustainable development goals. ESG is a way of asking whether we are addressing those goals. People will have the choice; as other noble Baronesses have said, we are not mandating what happens but trying to ensure that people have a choice and know where their money goes.

Amendment 67B closely relates to Amendment 92. There is rightly a lot of focus these days on transparency in decision-making and how people know that decisions are made. I quote the Pensions Minister, who said that pension schemes,

“ought to be thinking about the assets which help drive new investment in important sectors of the economy … which deliver the sustainable employment, communities and environments which all of us wish to enjoy”.

However, I refer back to the advice from the Law Commission to trustees that they,

“may not impose their own ethical views on their beneficiaries”.


I would argue that the legislation as currently drafted puts trustees in a difficult position, because they are not allowed to impose their own views but there is no mechanism directing where the choices should be made from. If we provide a mechanism by which schemes are directed to consult their beneficiaries, that will provide the guidance that the trustees need.

We seem to have been going for a very long while. I hope that this covers the main points of the amendment I have put forward. I look forward to the contributions from others who have put forward amendments, and to the Minister’s response.

17:15

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, I want to point out that Amendment 28 is important because members of pension schemes do not generally have much knowledge or understanding of how their assets are invested and managed. This clause places a reporting duty on the Pensions Regulator to publish statements of investment principles under Section 35 of the Pensions Act. The amendment would also place a requirement on the Pensions Regulator to create an SIPP repository, accessible to the public through its website, so that all scheme members could check their scheme’s investment strategy.

It will be interesting to see how investment strategies are described. I think that it will be necessary for them to be described in a way that is readily understandable by all citizens.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 89 relates to the occupational pension schemes regulations in the statement of investment principles. Again, it is about compliance with the Paris Agreement, particularly to hold the global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees centigrade. Other amendments in the group seek compliance in this area.

It is clearly very important to protect the interests of savers and the economy. I am grateful to the Minister for her amendments on climate change risk, her speedy response and her awareness of issues arising in this area. I have also supported Amendments 75 and 92. I certainly support Amendment 28 from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on the register and publication of the SIPPs from all pension schemes, and understand the administrative problems of smaller ones.

As we have heard from others, the size of the pension fund is hugely influential, particularly in transforming the economy into a green economy. I believe that pension schemes have had enormous effects in other areas. My own recollection is of South Africa, where schemes exerted very strong influence. In my city of Bristol, when creating a smoke-free city, we sought to get the pension schemes and their investors to support it. This can be a very powerful instrument in changing behaviour and thinking; I hope that it will be.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned that her amendments extend to all pension schemes. Again, I am not clear what the differences are. I note that the briefing from the ABI suggests that the PRA and the FCA are better placed to deal with the smaller pension schemes, but I would like to hear the views of the Minister on this. I very much support the spirit and content of most of the amendments in this group.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 52, 74, 75, 76 and 92 to which I have added my name. As the noble Baronesses have said, these amendments refer to the need to strengthen the obligations on pension funds to play their part in meeting the challenge of the climate emergency. We accept that the issue goes wider than this Bill, but we will succeed only if every part of government, including the DWP, industry and the economy play their part, so this pensions Bill does have a part to play.

In relation to pensions, it is vital that a consistent approach is taken across the pension scheme market with the DWP, the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority all requiring contract-based pension schemes and trust-based occupational schemes to demonstrate the same levels of compliance with our climate change objectives; otherwise, there could be adverse competition between the different funds, which we do not support.

I add my thanks to the Minister for acknowledging the importance of these issues when we raised them at Second Reading, arranging to meet us to discuss them further and tabling the Government’s amendment today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, it happened very quickly, and we were very impressed by that. It is fair to say that it is a start, but we do not think that it goes far enough. However, I am sure that we will have a good dialogue on this issue. In the meantime, we have tabled amendments.

I shall be brief as I do not want to echo what other noble Lords have said. Amendments 74 and 76 take out the specific reference to occupational pension schemes so that the requirement would apply to all pension schemes. This is important because, although occupational defined benefit and defined contribution schemes comprise a large part of the pensions market, there is a gradual shift taking place towards contract-based personal schemes. As one model is regulated by the Pensions Regulator and the other by the Financial Conduct Authority, it is vital that we take this opportunity to provide alignment and consistency on the climate change action that they require across that sector.

In the Minister’s helpful letter to Peers explaining the purpose of the government amendments, it did not seem to me that she addressed this lack of consistency. Perhaps she can do that now. Does she accept the need for a joint approach across the regulators to ensure that investment decisions have parity, so that one cannot take advantage of the other or lead to the detriment of members by requiring higher standards of one than another?

Secondly, our Amendment 75 explicitly spells out that the Government’s reference to climate change means the need to align with the objectives of the Paris agreement to hold temperature rises well below 2 degrees centigrade. It is important to have that wording in there because we bandy around the expression “climate change” but it means different things to different people, and we are concerned that it could otherwise be loosely interpreted. That is why we set out a more explicit requirement. We set out the reasons for that requirement at Second Reading. As other noble Lords have said, we are currently on track for 2 to 4 degrees centigrade of global warming by the end of the 21st century, and we know that that will have a profoundly negative impact on the global economy and therefore upon the investments and the financial returns of pension schemes. So it is important that we have a requirement to deliver our Paris agreement commitments. It is not just about us being fluffy and caring about the planet; it is a more hard-nosed issue about the direct interests of savers and our economy. That is why pension funds have such critical role to play. I hope that the Minister will accept the intent and the importance of that amendment.

Thirdly, I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 92, which provides a timescale for the consultation on implementing the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. It requires that the consultation will commence within one month and be completed within one year. Obviously we welcome the Government’s intention to consult widely on this issue, and we understand some of the complexities that lie behind all that, but meanwhile the clock is ticking on our Paris commitments and we are failing to step up to the mark on that, so this is one of the many areas where we need to take urgent action but also where we could deliver the biggest impact. I hope that the Minister understands and accepts the need for that consultation and follow-up to take place within a specific timeframe.

Finally, our Amendment 52 returns to the issue that we raised at Second Reading about the need to inform pension savers via the dashboard of the actions being taken by their trustees to deliver on climate change as set out in the UK Stewardship Code 2020 and to align with the Paris agreement. This amendment would add these factors as information that may be required to be provided by regulation. I know that at Second Reading there was some argument—maybe there will be again today—about the information on the dashboard needing to be kept simple in the first instance. We understand that issue, but we also have to acknowledge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman said, that pension savers are concerned about their pension funds propping up fossil fuel extraction, and they are keen to have information so that they can be empowered to take action on these issues. Our amendment has been tabled to explore how best we can achieve that by providing information in a simple and meaningful way to pension savers.

I hope that the Minister will agree that savers need to have access to this information and that the dashboard could be a meaningful way of achieving that objective. I look forward to her response.

[Lord Balfe]

I would like to say one sentence about this. First, could the Minister comment on this situation? I do not have a big role in pensions but in so far as I have, I have been pushing people towards index trackers. An index tracker that conforms to the UN principles for responsible investment is generally accepted. However, at the moment the UN principles do not contain climate change, so to what extent are we putting forward something which would be difficult to implement? Secondly, I wonder whether we are suggesting something which, far from being implemented by the trustees, will be implemented by means of companies, such as one or two I have come across in my life, which will go to trustees and say, “Here you are; for just £500 we can give you a statement of principles which will get you past the regulator”. There is a sense in which we might not be curing a problem at all but creating it, certainly for small pension funds that are largely invested in index trackers and bonds. Even bonds have their problems. In a pension fund where I was once a trustee when I said, “We will probably buy some UK Government bonds”, a member said, “Oh yes, Mr Blair needs the money to bomb Iraq, doesn’t he?”

17:30

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I do not think I will start at that point.

I will not add much. I had a lovely speech prepared, but it was much less good than some of the speeches we have heard already. Let me simply say that I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put this issue on the agenda. Like them, I am particularly delighted that the Minister was listening so carefully to my noble friend Lady Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others at Second Reading. If that is what could happen over Second Reading, just think what will happen by Report, after all we have done here today. I am very excited indeed at this new responsive Government: hurrah!

I want to add just a couple of things. I hope we all now recognise that there is no way that the Government are going to hit the 2050 target, never mind Paris, without pension schemes stepping up and playing their part. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I know it is difficult, but there is quite a lot of good thinking going on out there. I commend to him work done by the Church of England Pensions Board, which has recently developed an index, made available specially to enable funds—it is putting its own money where its mouth is—to do compatible things. I can talk to him about it afterwards. I should declare an interest: I am a Church of England priest, but my knowledge of pensions in the Church of England stops there, because I do not pay into any. There are things that can be done.

I am particularly conscious that people want to know this information. It will increasingly be the case: if we want more people to save, young people in particular will want to know where their money is going. The Government will have to find some way to address that. I will come on to talk about the dashboard, but I should be interested to know if MaPS is beginning to think about this. Is this in its consideration?

I should also be interested to know from the Minister about the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lady Jones to the government amendment, which raise interesting points. Is there a reason why the Government feel that they cannot apply them to all pension schemes and are they amenable to a stiffening around Paris, as opposed to generic climate change? If she could address both those questions, that would be helpful.

I should also be interested in her response to an amendment which is pushing a sense of urgency on the timescale of the task force on climate-related financial disclosures. It would be very helpful to get a sense of where the Government are going on that. It does not seem a hard ask: to run a consultation, soon after commencement, on implementing the recommendations of a task force coming back within a year would seem to be one of the easier concessions that the Minister has been asked to make, so perhaps she may look with a smile on that too.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and contributions. They have been numerous, but they have been numerous in quality, so I thank them for that. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the whole Committee that we are listening and aim to please.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. In responding, I will first address the three government amendments and then the others in the group. The Government are clear that action needs to be taken to address the risks that climate change brings. The Government announced in the Green Finance Strategy, published last July, that all large asset owners, including occupational pension schemes, would be expected to report on how they address climate change risk, in line with the international, industry-led task force on climate-related financial disclosure, by 2022.

Building on that expectation, the Government are now, through new Clauses 73, 81 and 98, seeking to take powers to require occupational pension schemes to manage the effects of climate change effectively as a financial risk to their investments and to report publicly on how they have done so. New Section 41A inserted into the Pensions Act 1995 confers powers on the Secretary of State to impose requirements on occupational pension scheme trustees and managers to secure effective governance on the effect of climate change on the scheme.

Let me be clear. This does not mean that it is for the Government to direct schemes or set their investment strategies. The Government never have directed pension scheme investment, and do not intend to. Our clear view is that the amendments do not permit us to do that. Amendments 74 and 76, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Jones, would amend the new clauses, expanding the remit of these powers and those under new Section 41B beyond occupational pension schemes to include personal pension schemes. Personal pension schemes are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, not the Pensions Regulator. To place requirements on personal pension providers through the Bill would create a patchwork of overlapping regulatory oversight, under which providers would have to respond to two separate regulators on the same activity.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised occupational schemes. The FCA is currently considering how best to enhance climate-related disclosures by workplace personal pension schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, also referenced personal pensions.

Turning back to the government amendment, the Government believe it is absolutely necessary that trustees act within their fiduciary duty to protect members’ benefits against the growing physical risks of climate change and the risks of the transition to a lower-carbon economy. However, action taken by trustees and managers should not be limited to avoiding risk but should involve consideration of the investment opportunities that climate change presents, as new Section 41A(2) makes clear.

New Section 41A(3) sets out the kinds of activities trustees and managers of pension schemes may be required to undertake as part of their governance on the effects of climate change. Where such requirements are introduced, our intention is that trustees or managers are doing the determination, review and revision of strategies and targets. It is not a matter for the Government. We will consult on the exact requirements, the timings for introducing them and the scheme in scope.

New Clause 92 seeks to bind the Secretary of State to a specific timeline for launching this consultation and publishing the response. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their compliments about the speed of our action on climate change; I must tell your Lordships that our Secretary of State Thérèse Coffey and Minister for Pensions Guy Opperman are 110% behind this. It was their action, not mine, that put this into the Bill, so I cannot take credit for something I did not do; they deserve all the credit for that. I understand the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that we should push further. As my great friend William Booth would have said, that and better will do. I understand the point she is making.

I assure the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Jones, in response to their amendment, that the Government intend to launch their consultation on the task force recommendations upon the Bill completing its passage through Parliament, and to respond within a year.

Amendments 52 and 75 and new Clause 89 specifically identify alignment with the Paris Agreement as one of the risk-assessment activities which schemes should be doing. Our view is that the industry is not quite ready for this sizeable step in reporting requirements. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised global warming. Amendment 75 goes further than reporting on alignment to require governance of schemes to align with the Paris Agreement’s objective of global warming of well under 2 degrees Celsius. This would be tantamount to directing schemes’ investments, which the Government have already ruled out. The Government are seeking to ensure effective governance of climate change risk, not to direct trustees’ or managers’ investments.

However, new Section 41A(4) in Amendment 73, taken with new Section 41B, would enable the Government to prescribe reporting on Paris alignment, requiring schemes to consider their alignment with Paris in relation to risk and exposure and to make this information public. At present, there is little consensus on methodologies for reporting on Paris alignment. This area is developing very quickly, which is why the Government are seeking powers to prescribe such reporting in future. We will continue to monitor the development of methodologies and data in the industry, and would put any future proposals on this issue to consultation.

The Government believe that schemes should be doing effective governance, as new Section 41A will allow us to require, and that schemes should publish this information as set out in the task force recommendations. New Section 41B would enable the Government to lay regulations to require this information to be made public, free of charge, including to members.

New Clause 89 would require some of this information on Paris Agreement alignment to feature in the scheme’s published statement of investment principles, or SIP. However, should the amendment be accepted, this would pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. In contrast, new Section 41B of the Government’s amendment takes powers which would enable the Government to introduce publication requirements relating to the degree of Paris Agreement alignment at a later date.

When disclosing information and documents, subsection (3) of new Section 41B in the Government’s amendment requires trustees and managers to have regard to statutory guidance which the department will publish. In requiring schemes to follow this guidance, consistency and comparability across reporting by different schemes will be easier to achieve. Other benefits of publication are ensuring that best practice is shared across the industry and that trustees and managers can learn from those with the most advance climate risk governance.

Amendments 28 and 36 seek to achieve a similar objective by granting the regulator the responsibility to create a repository of statements of investment principles and forcing schemes to provide their SIPs, as well as sections of annual statements, to the regulator. The Government were concerned by the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association’s recent research, which showed widespread non-compliance in publishing SIPs. We have urged UKSIF to pass its findings to the regulator, so that it can take swift action. We believe a central repository has a part to play in that, but Amendment 28 does not take into account the growing concentration of the vast majority of members in a small number of schemes. Of more than 5,000 defined benefit schemes, the largest 200 schemes have more than 60% of members. Of more than 3,000 defined contribution schemes, the largest 150 have more than 96% of members. For these members, their own scheme’s website or public pages are the natural places to look for investment information, not a corner of the Pensions Regulator’s website.

Similarly, in relation to Amendment 36, the regulator has already placed the largest schemes under one-to-one supervision and has regular sight of the all the documents referred to. In any event, Amendments 28 and 36 are unnecessary, as I can report that officials at the DWP and the Pensions Regulator have already begun work to identify how a central index of SIPs can be produced. Amendment 97 seeks to put a duty on trustees to consult members each time they review their SIP. However, this imposes unreasonable burdens on trustees. The Law Commission has confirmed in two reviews that trustees are not required to take account of members’ views, although in some circumstances they can. It would be unhelpful to require trustees to solicit member preferences which they had no ability or intention to take into account. Amendments 52, 67A and 67B seek to include information on Paris alignment reporting and consideration of ESG in the pensions dashboard.

We will turn to the dashboard later in Committee, but it is important to highlight here—

[Baroness Altmann]

I am so sorry to interrupt my noble friend. First, I want to draw the Committee’s attention to my interests as set out in the register in connection with pensions, and to the fact that my son works on sustainable transport and reducing transport emissions. Will the Minister write to members of the Committee about the regulator’s plans for creating a central repository? Will it be comprehensive? If DWP and the Pensions Regulator are working on setting this up anyway, would it do any harm to have this measure in the Bill to make sure that it happens?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

Of course we will be happy to write to answer the questions that my noble friend has raised.

[Baroness Hayman]

There is a lot of detail in what the Minister has said and I am very grateful to her for saying that she will look at it. I think she said that the Financial Conduct Authority is considering the requirements to be put on personal pension schemes; that is, those not covered by the government amendment and the regulations. The Minister was very helpful about the timetable of the consultation on the Government’s proposal on occupational schemes. Is there any timetable for personal pension scheme requirements? Is it the Government’s ambition that they should parallel the requirements in the Bill?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I am advised that we need to get that information from the FCA; when we do, we will give it to all members of the Committee. I hope that that is acceptable.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

I apologise, but this seems to be the logical point at which to do this. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and request to also get a copy of that. Further to that, if there are already plans to have a central index of SIPPs and that system already exists, including the implementation and chair statements would surely be a very small administrative burden. Could the Minister consider whether that is possible? She can answer now or in the future.

17:45

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

Can I answer the noble Baroness’s question when I come to the specifics that have been asked? If I get to the end and have not answered, I have no doubt that she will let me know.

We will turn to dashboards later in Committee. However, it is important to highlight here that the Government want to ensure that information on dashboard services can be easily comprehensible to consumers. For this reason, dashboards should start with simple information. We remain interested in finding out whether dashboards can support an increase in engagement on issues, including the investment decisions made by schemes.

Moreover, new paragraph (c)(i), which would be inserted by Amendment 52, would not only duplicate the intent of the Government’s new clauses but would also duplicate existing duties that the Government have already placed on trustees. Amendment 67A would have a corresponding effect on workplace personal pension schemes, for which the FCA has also legislated to take account of such factors. Both these sets of requirements are mandatory, unlike the voluntary UK stewardship code referenced in this amendment.

Amendment 67B would enable the dashboard to include information on how schemes take into account members’ interests. Notwithstanding earlier arguments for keeping the dashboard simple at first, occupational schemes already have duties to report on the extent to which they take account of members’ views in investment decisions.

The final new section in the Government’s amendment, new Section 41C, confers powers on the Secretary of State to lay regulations ensuring that managers and trustees of occupational pension schemes comply with requirements in regulations laid under powers delegated by new Sections 41A and 41B. In particular, regulations may allow the Pensions Regulator to issue compliance notices, third party compliance notices and penalty notices. The provisions in new Section 41C are consistent with similar compliance provisions relating to pension schemes in paragraph 3 of Schedule 18 to the Pensions Act 2014.

New Section 41C and indeed 41A are subject to the affirmative procedure at first use only. The first regulations made in exercise of the powers in these sections will confer enforcement powers on the regulator and place new requirements on trustees or managers. The Government therefore consider that they should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny. However, the Government expect any subsequent use of the powers to be for the purpose of periodically amending these requirements to ensure that they reflect developments. We therefore believe that the negative procedure beyond first use is appropriate. The consultation requirements in Section 120 of the Pensions Act 1995, into which these new sections are proposed to be inserted, would also apply.

Delegated powers to set out these requirements in secondary legislation are essential to ensure that the requirements can take account of developing operational and financial best practice and are proportionate to the scheme in question. It also ensures that they reflect the rapidly developing understanding of the effects of climate change and its interaction with the financial system. Furthermore, the urgency of action required to address the climate emergency demands a swift policy response now and in the future.

All the Government’s new clauses also make provision for Northern Ireland that is equivalent to the provision that would be made by the Government’s amendments. This would ensure that, in accordance with the long-standing principle of parity, the single system of pensions across the UK is maintained. As such, the arguments made in relation to the proposed amendments to the Pensions Act 1995 apply equally to the amendments proposed to the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, inserting a new paragraph into Schedule 11.

The government amendments and their associated powers are as urgent as they are important. Climate change is a major risk to the nation’s pension savings. It is appropriate and responsible for the Government to require those who have a duty to deliver members’ retirement income to safeguard investments against climate risk and publish information on how they have done so.

I come to some of the specific questions raised—

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

I am sorry to interrupt but this is specifically on the government amendments. Like others, I welcome what is there and I hear the Minister referring to the matter as urgent and important. I just come up against a block when I see that it says “Regulations may impose”. Why can we not have “must” if there is an intention that these things are to be done? From the particular point of view of justice, in new Sections 41C and 41D, the reference to what would be your right of appeal to a tribunal still comes under “may”. I know that it is a standard formulation but it really does not appear to be right, because nothing is actually promised when it says “may”. Why can we not have “must”, and certainly have “must” when it comes to defences and reference to tribunals?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

In answer to the noble Baroness, subject to the passage of the Bill we will consult extensively this summer on the content of new regulations, which will likely include the content of these new requirements and the timing thereof. When we lay regulations and when they come into force will depend upon the outcome of the consultation, but we will respond to that within a year of its launch.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

That still does not mean that something will definitely happen then. I understand that the regulations’ shape depends upon the consultation but they should be regulations that do something, with a promise that we are going to have them—that there will be some, not that there “may”.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

As I understand it, we have to consult before we can make that decision.

[Lord Sharkey]

Could I join in on this? We are talking about Amendment 73, which would insert new Section 41A on “Climate change risk”. Its first proposed subsection says “Regulations may impose requirements”; it does not specify any requirements in that part because, as the Minister rightly says, they are all to be consulted on later. But it is odd that it should say “may” and not “must” since it talks about imposing requirements. In practice it means that the Government need not do anything at all, which is unfortunate.

Exactly the same comment applies to new Section 41C, headed “Sections 41A and 41B: compliance”. It begins “Regulations may make provision” and underneath that is a long list of things that will eventually turn out to be regulations and will be consulted on. I understand that “may” is appropriate there but, as it stands, the Government do not have to do anything at all about this as long as the word “may” remains as it is in both those initial paragraphs. I re-emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lady Bowles: leaving the provision of an appeal mechanism to “may” might not be a very good idea.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I do not know whether the noble Lord has put his name on the list to meet, but it looks as though I am able to offer him a meeting on the consultation first, if that is helpful, to try to get to where he wants to be.

Going back to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Altmann about schemes not having a website, schemes are not required to set up a website to publish their statement of investment principles or other documents. The information must be published on a publicly available website in a manner which allows for the content to be indexed by internet search engines. This can include a social media site, a blogging platform or a repository offered by a search engine provider, as long as trustees have ensured that the document is public and can be indexed. The Government are not in the business of endorsing publishing tools, but Facebook, WordPress and Google Docs allow for free publication.

Coming on to my noble friend Lady Altmann’s point about what is meant by a large scheme, following the passage of the Bill, we will consult extensively in the summer on what schemes should be in scope and how the scope will increase over time. My noble friend also said that the Pensions Regulator is not doing anything about breaches of ESG legislation. The chief executive of the Pensions Regulator has written to DWP to confirm that it is taking action. The regulator has engaged with the findings of the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association on the poor state of compliance among some pension schemes and will follow up on breaches of compliance.

My noble friend Lady Altmann also said that pension schemes should be required to align their portfolios with the Paris Agreement to reach net zero by 2050. The Government’s amendment and subsequent regulations will focus on schemes’ governance of climate risk and disclosure of that risk. We do not wish to direct pension schemes to align their investments with the Paris Agreement targets, and the legislation does not allow us to do so. Nevertheless, Paris alignment reporting could be useful as a measure of climate-related risk to the scheme. We will consult over the longer term on whether it is a useful assessment of a scheme’s exposure and risk.

I have already come clean to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on whom to credit for the speedy inclusion of the amendments. She also raised a point about taking account of members’ views. The Law Commission has found that pension schemes have a fiduciary duty to take account of all financially material risks, including environmental risks. We have legislated to require all schemes with 100 members to publish their policies on financially material environmental risks, including climate change, and defined contribution schemes will be required to report annually on how they manage those risks from October 2020.

Trustees do not have a duty to take account of members’ ethical concerns but are free to do so when they believe a majority of members who express a view share those concerns and when doing so would not result in significant member detriment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked why we will not legislate for personal pension schemes. Personal pension schemes are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, not the Pensions Regulator. To place requirements on personal pension providers through this legislation would create a patchwork of overlapping regulatory oversight under which providers would have to respond to two separate regulators on the same activity. The FCA is currently considering how best to enhance climate-related disclosures by workplace personal pension schemes, building on its existing rules framework and enforcement powers. I will write on the number of members of personal pension schemes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked whether dashboards will include pension schemes’ environmental, social and governance policies. We are very interested in how dashboards can support and increase engagement, including whether information on areas such as ESG, which trustees are required to cover as part of their disclosure obligations, may be incorporated into the dashboards. This is to be informed by user testing and may evolve over time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quoted the Minister for Pensions, who wrote,

“pension schemes ought to be thinking about the assets which help … drive new investment in important sectors of the economy … which deliver the sustainable employment, communities and environments which all of us wish to enjoy.”

How will we meet this if the scheme does not know members’ wishes? The Government have been very clear that the purpose of a pension scheme trust is to deliver an appropriate return to its beneficiaries. The context of the Minister’s quote makes this clear and that it is possible to deliver this while having a beneficial effect on the communities in which they invest. The noble Baroness also talked about the implementation and chair statements being published. Schemes are already required to publish their chair’s statement and implementation statement. We are working closely with the regulator to develop a central index that can also be applied to the implementation statement and the chair’s statement.

Finally on the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about pension schemes being required to go beyond climate change to consider sustainability more broadly, trustees already have clarity that they should take account of financially material social and environmental risk in investment policies. This includes, for example, considering violations of human rights laws and destructive environmental practices. In practice, most trustees do not actively manage investments and cannot make stock selections, but the Government have set the requirement for a clear policy which will be published and shared with those managing the investments. As I have said before, the Government do not tell pension schemes how to invest. Seeking to do that would force trustees to chose between acting in the best interests of members and following government directions.

I hope I have answered all noble Lords’ questions and therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and urge noble Lords to support the amendments standing in my name.

18:00

[Baroness Altmann]

I thank my noble friend for her comprehensive response. I think she can tell from the comments that we would be grateful for some follow-up conversations. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

Debate on whether Clause 110 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

Compared with the very interesting debate we have just had on these important amendments, what I have to say regarding the stand-part element of Clause 110 is probably rather insignificant in many minds. On Second Reading, I raised with the Minister the question of the nature of the regulator’s responsibilities, particularly in relation to the process of interview. I am concerned about Clause 110(4), where there is a situation concerning an individual summoned for interview by the regulator failing to answer a question or to provide an explanation that satisfied the regulator. That comes in new Section 72A of the Pensions Act 2004.

I am concerned because, as far as I am aware, an explanation is defined as a statement or account that makes something clear, but there is a massive amount of subjectivity and responsibility on the regulator’s shoulders in concluding whether that explanation is satisfactory. With the sanctions in place—ultimately a criminal sanction, but also civil sanctions—it seems a very serious area and one in which the basic right of individuals not to self-incriminate, for instance, or even providing some information can result in a more serious effect than anticipated.

I want to defend the regulator here because some remarks have been made during the debate on these amendments suggesting that the regulator needs thoroughly investigating. We are putting upon the regulator a whole lot of new responsibilities, partly in the area I am talking about—decision-making on subjective matters—but also in the overall workload, which I am concerned about.

I was just looking at the impact assessment of the Pension Schemes Bill 2020. In relation to the matters I am talking about, it suggests, for instance, that the impact on the government side of this—the changes that might be made to the requirements for the regulator or the regulator’s ability to pursue these matters—is “broadly cost neutral”. I suggest that this is not a fair appraisal because the extra responsibility placed on the regulator, and the way in which that becomes controversial from time to time, is bound to be costly. It will cost money, and the regulator therefore needs to be resourced adequately to be able to deal with that and other responsibilities we are placing on it.

Similarly, the extra obligations on those who are being interviewed or are required to comply with these things are not inconsiderable. There will be costs for those businesses that are already having to find considerable resources to deal with matters where the regulator has the powers to intervene. Therefore—perhaps my noble friend would consider this—I suggest that it would be very useful if, when this legislation is passed, the regulator is taken fully into account in terms of the resource. Just as importantly, it would be very useful if the regulator had thorough and better guidance compared to the present guidance about how to handle these circumstances and how these subjective requirements should be dealt with. That is enormously important. It is not part of the legislation as such but I think that the regulator is entitled not to be so liable for its judgments. Also, more guidance should be available to it so that it does not find itself in an unfair and unreasonable position in making these powers work.

That is all that I want to say to my noble friend at this point. I did so at Second Reading and have spoken to her subsequently. Although this issue is not as important as some of the amendments, it is significant in terms of the obligations on the regulator and on those who fall under these regulations.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank my noble friend for that contribution, which is equally as important as the amendments. The regulator will update its current compliance enforcement policy in due course and that will include how it conducts interviews under this clause. We will discuss the impact assessment at a later stage, and I suggest that we address the specific issues that my noble friend has raised at that point. I hope that he is happy to proceed on that basis.

Clause 110 agreed.

Clause 111 agreed.

Clause 112: Fixed penalty notices and escalating penalty notices

Amendment 29

Moved by

[Lord Sharkey]

29: Clause 112, page 99, line 7, leave out “£50,000” and insert “£1 million”

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. Amendments 29, 30 and 32 in my name are all probing. Their purpose is to allow discussion of the reasoning behind the choice of penalties written into Clauses 112 and 115. In each case, I would be interested to know two things: what comparisons, if any, did the Government make in deciding on the penalty amounts, and what was done to assess the likely effectiveness of these amounts? In other words, are the upper limits really large enough to influence behaviour, and what has convinced the Government that they are?

At Second Reading, I noted that the Government seem uncertain about the merit of the £1 million upper limit contained in new Section 88A, inserted into the Pensions Act 2004 by Clause 115. Subsection (2) of new Section 88A is where this £1 million is set, but the very next subsection allows for secondary legislation to change this upwards without limit. As far as I can tell, this power to adjust upwards by regulation does not apply to the penalty upper limits in Clause 112, and I think that that deserves an explanation. Why are the Government confident that they will not need to change upwards the lesser penalties in Clause 112 but feel that they might have to do so for the major penalty in Clause 115? Surely it is not wise to allow unlimited power to raise penalty levels by regulation.

The Government implicitly acknowledge that that is the case by setting limits on the face of the Bill. Then they do a reverse ferret by giving themselves unlimited discretion to revise upwards in one case. I can see why the Government might lack confidence in the proposed £1 million limit, given the resources of those upon whom the penalty might fall, but surely it would be better to have in the Bill a limit that we think might work, or at least a limit on how far the initial amount may be raised or a proportional system, as proposed by the amendment of my noble friend Lady Bowles.

In any event, it would be very helpful to know how the Government alighted on all these upper bounds, especially the £1 million limit, and especially as they all seem intuitively to be rather on the low side. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group—Amendment 31 is my own. The broad principle is not to let the fines simply be a cost of doing business for the wealthy and especially large companies. Inevitably, large fines give rise to concern among those who would be the bottom end of any range of fines, with respect both to the seriousness of their offence and their resources. It is clear that proportionality is key—proportionality both to the severity of the offence and the resources of the offender. The fine must also be a sufficient deterrent, not just a cost of doing business.

It does not seem to be customary to recite proportionality in legislation, as it is presumed. For my part, I would not see it as damaging to include wording on proportionality, and anyway it would always be part of any appeal. That is why, in Amendment 31, I changed the new Section 88A fine from “£1 million” to

“twice the employer’s pension deficit or 4% of the employer’s annual global turnover (whichever is greater)”.

The fines may not be these amounts; they are the maximums. These fines can be for egregious matters that put pension funds at risk—and, therefore, the livelihood and well-being of pensioners and future pensioners—and potentially impose on taxpayers. They are fines for being a social pestilence.

I thought that the size of the deficit was relevant—maybe I should have made it three times the size, because my inspiration was US-style triple damages that can apply for monstrous offences. I have made it clear that I think doing bad things to pensions is pretty monstrous.

Turnover-linked criteria are also not new. They are in use in the UK, having been recently introduced for the Information Commissioner; that is what I have copied. They have, of course, been in play for some time for competition offences. The Information Commissioner penalties also have a numerical option, although again that is not limited to the turnover side of the penalty. I left out the number in my amendment to emphasis the proportionality point, but I would have no problem adding in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sharkey so that we have a numerical measure in there as well.

It would seem from something that was said to me—in one of the meetings, I think—that the £1 million fine level was inspired by “similar fine provisions” by the FCA. Well, I can suggest several responses to that. First, the FCA may be the one out of line with modern thinking, the fine having been set a while ago. Also, it has perhaps been undermined because it always has to do consultations and, strangely, has to consult those who might be fined. But, as a matter of consultation, I note that the ABI has supported my amendment.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, these amendments offer a good opportunity to explore whether the penalties in the Bill are of the right kind and scale. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to set out the thinking behind the decisions that the Government have reached. I read the DWP policy brief for the Bill; it says that, in developing the new sanctions, the main priority had been getting the right balance between increased deterrents and protection for members, minimising any negative impacts on industry, and ensuring that the new sanctions are in line with the wider statute book. So one of the questions is: has it done that?

The first question, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, is: are the penalties set at the right place and why are they set at that place? What is the argument —why £50,000 and not £100,000? Why £l million and not £10 million or £50 million? Was this done to mirror provisions elsewhere? If so, which ones? If not, what work—what modelling—was done to lead Ministers to believe that they have landed in the right place?

Interestingly, the policy brief then says that the DWP considered the level when establishing the new penalty of up to £1 million. It says that the level had to be proportionate for local individuals and businesses of different wealth levels and appropriate for a wide range of behaviours, provide a stronger deterrent than the current regime and work alongside the new criminal offences for non-compliance, under which an unlimited fine can be issued. I need the Minister to help me here because this is not my area of expertise: if the maximum fine is £1 million, why does the maximum fine have to take account of a wide range of behaviours and wealth of individuals or businesses? Presumably, the maximum fine applies only to the people at the top of the scale, either those who have the most money or have done the worst thing. How does that balance work in setting a maximum fine? There may be a really good reason—maybe you have to be proportionate; I do not know—but could she explain it to me?

18:15

Secondly, the brief said that in choosing the level the DWP decided that it should be in line with the average penalties issued by the FCA against individuals, whereas I think these fines are going to be issued against individuals and businesses. The policy brief says that, if you exclude one extreme case, the average FCA penalty since 2016-17 was less than £1 million. I assume that the extreme case, whatever it was, was above £1 million. What if there is another extreme case? Even if we ignore the extreme case, if the average of the rest was below £1 million then was any of them above £1 million? After all, if they averaged below £1 million, maybe one of them was higher and others were lower. I just wonder why the Government are so confident that the cases coming up now would not go above that ceiling. Even the ABI, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said, has said that the proposed cap of just £1 million on fines is unlikely to be an effective deterrent for employers who can easily afford this. It recommended that the fines should reflect the savings made by the sponsor by wilfully acting to the detriment of scheme members.

That brings me to the second question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles: why a fixed maximum penalty rather than one that relates to the circumstances of the case—that is, the turnover, the deficit or some other relevant factor? Again, the DWP policy brief explains this. It says that the department followed the FCA in terms of penalty levels but that adopting a similar approach to the Financial Conduct Authority’s approach based on turnover was considered and discounted, and that it was deemed that providing a fixed maximum level for the new penalty provided a better balance of the considerations previously outlined.

That raises an obvious question: why did it decide that? I can see that that is what the department thought it was doing, but that does not explain why it considered and discounted it; the brief simply says that it did. Were the circumstances different enough from those in the case of the FCA to merit sticking with them in terms of levels but moving away from them in terms of the kinds of fines? Could the Minister explain that?

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, made an interesting point about regulations and the ability to vary the maximum. I would be interested to know if there is a comparable power for HMT or HMRC to vary that. Is that something else that has been taken from a parallel elsewhere?

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, made some interesting points at Second Reading about the effect of repeated offences that appear to be small but which, if done deliberately and repeatedly, could have effects that were actually quite big, yet the penalties on them are limited and quite small. Has the Minister reflected on that at all?

I am interested in how the Government got here. I accept that in reality most of the work is not going to be done by the fines; by the time you get to fining someone, frankly, the damage is done. Most of the work will be done by the supervision and regulatory regime, and we will spend much more time on that. However, the fines play an important symbolic role in signalling how bad we think offences are. I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, if less colourfully, in thinking that people who put pension schemes at risk are doing very bad things and the Government should discourage them from so doing, so I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s explanation of how they propose to do that.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments and I will do my best to answer all their questions. Clause 112 inserts new provisions for the Pensions Regulator to impose fixed and escalating civil penalties where a person has not complied with the regulator’s information-gathering powers. The level of the penalties is to be set in regulations, but the fixed penalty cannot exceed £50,000 and the rate of the escalating penalty cannot exceed £10,000 a day.

Clause 115 provides for a new financial penalty in the Pensions Act 2004 which can be issued by the Pensions Regulator, and sets the maximum amount of this financial penalty at £1 million. Amendments 29 and 30, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, seek to raise the penalty levels for both the fixed and escalating penalties. Fixed and escalating penalties are already available to the regulator for non-compliance with information-gathering provisions in connection with automatic enrolment and master trusts. We consider that it would be inconsistent and unfair to have a much higher maximum, as introduced by these amendments, for similar breaches connected to other types of pension schemes.

We have no evidence that these maximum levels are inadequate or not working. On the contrary, the regulator confirms that the current levels of fixed and escalating penalties provide an adequate deterrent in automatic enrolment: issuing a fixed penalty results in compliance in the majority of cases, with only a few cases resulting in escalating penalties. The noble Lord’s amendment would introduce a maximum fixed penalty of £1 million, but that is the maximum level of the financial penalty that the Bill is introducing for serious breaches of pension legislation—for example, deliberately giving the regulator false information, or conduct that puts members’ benefits at risk.

I know that some noble Lords feel that the financial penalty should be higher, but we believe it is set at the right level. It would not be right for the penalty for not complying with an information request to be as high as for serious breaches of pension legislation. I should also make it clear that not complying with information requests, or obstructing an inspector, is a criminal offence and will remain so, with the potential for an unlimited fine. The intention is that these fixed and escalating penalties will be imposed for less serious breaches, where the regulator thinks a civil penalty is more appropriate than a criminal prosecution. Imposing a civil penalty is likely to take less time than instituting criminal proceedings, therefore the regulator can receive the necessary information and conclude an investigation more quickly. In the 2018 consultation on the regulator’s powers, mirroring the approach for automatic enrolment and master trusts was supported by industry representatives.

Amendment 31, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Janke, and Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, seek to raise the maximum amount of the new financial penalty. We consulted on our proposals in 2018 and they were developed from the Green Paper consultation in 2017. The £1 million maximum penalty was supported by the majority of respondents. The £1 million penalty is positioned as a mid-level sanction, between the lower £50,000 penalty for acts of non-compliance by corporates and £5,000 by individuals and the new higher-level criminal offences for serious wrongdoing that has an unlimited fine. The £1 million maximum level was also deemed to be appropriate as it is comparable with the average level of equivalent sanctions for financial crimes in the financial sector issued to individuals by the Financial Conduct Authority.

The new financial penalty can be applied to a number of offences, and changing the maximum penalty to the levels in the noble Baronesses’ amendment would be inappropriate in the case of some of these offences. Moreover, the people who are within scope of these penalties vary. In some cases, the target of the penalty may not have any direct connection to the sponsoring employer’s company or to the scheme itself. It would therefore be difficult to justify why such a person should be liable to pay a penalty of up to a maximum of double the scheme deficit or a percentage of the employer’s turnover. In such cases, a maximum level of £1 million is more proportionate and provides clarity. The introduction of the new financial penalty in this clause was also an integral part of enabling the Pensions Regulator to take action more swiftly, thereby becoming a “clearer, quicker, tougher” regulator.

The new maximum penalty levels proposed in Amendment 31 in particular go against this intention, as the precise meaning of the terms “deficit” and “turnover” is uncertain, and how these are to be calculated is unclear. This leads to uncertainty for any targets of the penalty and will place an unnecessary burden on the regulator. For example, the regulator would need to interpret what is an appropriate definition of deficit to use for the purposes of the penalty and then estimate what this deficit would be. Similarly, the regulator would need to dedicate resources to estimating what constitutes the employer’s annual global turnover and what would be relevant turnover for this calculation. Further, a question arises about the time at which the deficit or turnover should be assessed. For example, should it be calculated from the time the act took place or at the point of instituting proceedings? If the act is part of a series, at which point in the series should the deficit or turnover be calculated?

Until the regulator had carried out these assessments, the maximum penalty that could be charged would be uncertain. The assumptions that the regulator would need to use would also be open to challenge by the target. This would impede the regulator’s ability to take swift action and could tie enforcement up in lengthy challenges over the penalty amount. This would also put a drain on the resources the regulator has to undertake its functions.

The clause contains a power to increase the maximum amount of the financial penalties if required. This is to ensure that the penalty remains an effective deterrent in the future and accounts for factors such as inflation.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked why we were consulting on the level of penalties rather than putting these figures in the Bill. The maximum level of penalties is included in the Bill. The level and daily rate of the existing fixed and escalating penalties which relate to automatic enrolment and master trusts are set in regulations. These provisions mirror that approach. Feedback during the consultation on the regulator’s powers indicated strong agreement on similar fixed and escalating civil penalties, but little consensus on the detail of the exact levels. We need to consult further to ensure that the penalties are set at an appropriate level.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked why we do not follow the method of imposing fines used by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The ICO has a fining power as required in accordance with the 2016 general data protection regulation. Article 83 of the GDPR states that the penalties must be at particular levels.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked what modelling or consultation took place to set the maximum financial penalty at £1 million. The Government consulted on the proposals for strengthening the regulator’s powers in 2018, which were developed from the Green Paper consultation in 2017. As I have said, the £1 million maximum penalty was supported by the majority of respondents to the consultation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also asked about different fines decided by the FCA rather than by averages. I am afraid that I will have to write to her to answer her question on whether others have the power to change the maximum.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that the Government have thought carefully about these penalty amounts and struck the right balance between protecting members and being proportionate to the business. Therefore, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I realise that my questions were quite detailed, so could I ask the Minister to look at the record and write to me to answer each of them in turn? Could I encourage her to draw on the expertise behind her to answer the questions? Sometimes one gets letters after a debate and, while they relate to the general area of the questions, they are maybe not quite as well targeted as one would hope. I encourage her to do that and would be delighted to leave it at that at this time.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank the noble Baroness for this homework. I will ensure it is delivered to her and that it is accurate.

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, in her explanation of the £1 million upper limit, the Minister relied to some extent on the consultation outcomes from 2018. I am curious about who was consulted. Was the ABI a consultee? She will have heard earlier in this debate the ABI’s rather enthusiastic approval of an increase in the £1 million limit, so it would be interesting to know whether the ABI has done a reverse ferret or whether it was not included in the first place.

Secondly, if the Minister is confident in her arguments for the £1 million penalty, as she clearly is, then I find it very strange that in the next section of the Bill it says, “If we don’t like that, we can increase it to anything we like via regulation”. That shows a startling lack of confidence in the £1 million. It is quite wrong to give unlimited discretion via regulation to raise the fine to any amount at all. It is unsatisfactory that this provision exists within the Bill. I am sure that we will want to discuss this further, preferably before Report, and if not, certainly on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

Amendment 30 not moved.

18:30

Clause 112 agreed.

Clauses 113 and 114 agreed.

Clause 115: Financial penalties

Amendments 31 and 32 not moved.

Clause 115 agreed.

Amendment 33

Moved by

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

33: After Clause 115, insert the following new Clause—
“Report for the purposes of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
(1) The Pensions Regulator must make a report to the Secretary of State under this section if the circumstances in subsection (2) apply.(2) The circumstances in this subsection are where—(a) a person has been convicted of an offence under this Act or another offence related to a pension scheme,(b) it appears to the Pensions Regulator that a person has committed an offence under this Act or another offence related to a pension scheme, or(c) a person is fined under section 88A of the Pensions Act 2004.(3) In the report under subsection (1) the Pensions Regulator must—(a) identify the person,(b) identify, where the person is a corporate body, any person who was a director of it at the time any offence was committed or appears to have been committed,(c) report on any facts which appear to the Pensions Regulator to be relevant to the Secretary of State for the purpose of making a decision under section 8(1) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, and(d) state whether the Pensions Regulator considers that, having regard to the need for public confidence in the system of pensions regulation, it would be expedient in the public interest for any person so identified to be the subject of a disqualification order.(4) But the Pensions Regulator is not to be required to make a report to the Secretary of State in respect of a person if—(a) that person is a director who is the subject of a disqualification order under section 2 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 in respect of a criminal offence, or(b) in the case of a fine under section 88A of the Pensions Act 2004, it appears to the Pensions Regulator that no public interest would be served in making a disqualification order against that person.”

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, this amendment aims to utilise an existing provision in the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Section 8(1) of that Act was broadened in 2015 so that the Secretary of State for BEIS may, in the public interest, apply to the court for a disqualification order. It used to be the case that Section 8(1) was activated by a report after certain specific investigations, one of which was an investigation by the FCA. The change in 2015 recognised that the reports did not need to be so restrictive. What I propose follows the theme of the original procedure and suggests that when there has been a serious offence committed regarding pensions, the Pensions Regulator should make a report to the Secretary of State for BEIS for the purposes of the Company Directors Disqualification Act.

The Pensions Regulator would be required to identify the person, or, if a body corporate, the directors at the time when the offence was committed, and,

“state whether the Pensions Regulator considers that, having regard to the need for public confidence in the system of pensions regulation, it would be expedient in the public interest for … a disqualification order.”

It would then be up to the Secretary of State to decide whether to refer it to the court for disqualification. The fact that I have had to explain what this is all about to others outside the Committee, and that it is already envisaged or in law, indicates that it needs a nudge to make it active and that the regulator needs to be empowered and encouraged to make reports.

My proposed new clause is constructed so that all offences can trigger such a report from the Pensions Regulator, whether criminal offences or fines. But under its subsection (4), the Pensions Regulator has discretion not to make a report if a disqualification is already proceeding, which is possible in the event of a criminal offence being decided against an individual, or if the offence is a fine rather than a criminal offence. These new provisions would be particularly relevant when a company has been found guilty. It would mean that the actions of the directors would be investigated. Again, I note that the ABI has indicated support for this amendment.

The inspiration for the amendment comes from the fact that there are certain financial instances or breaches of competition law where the directors are always investigated. Pensions is a significant social issue on which hearing from the relevant regulator should also be a matter of course. There is no automatic disqualification or even an automatic reference to the court—that is up to the Secretary of State—but at least for a criminal matter there would always be a report concerning the circumstances and an added incentive for board scrutiny of matters relating to pensions. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I can add little to that careful explanation of the amendment; I know a lot more than I did five minutes ago. However, as the Minister responds, perhaps she could tell us a little more about what happens both now and when the Bill becomes law: that is, what the TPR does when someone has committed an offence, what is its understanding of to whom this should be reported, in what circumstances, and how its enforcement team works with the supervision team and with the FCA’s enforcement supervision arrangements. That is not directly the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, was making but I very much endorse her approach, which is to put the importance of pensions on a par with the importance of threats in other parts of the economy. That is interesting, and I am interested in the Government’s response to it.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for tabling this amendment, which would require the Pensions Regulator to provide a report to the Secretary of State for the purposes of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Director disqualification is within the remit of the Insolvency Service, which has the powers, resources and expertise to disqualify directors. As such, the Pensions Regulator does not have the power to disqualify directors, as this would be unnecessary, costly and inefficient. However, the Pensions Regulator is already able to share information with the Insolvency Service if it meets the “gateway” criteria as outlined in its restricted information regime under Section 82 of the Pensions Act 2004. The regulator can use this gateway in circumstances where the sharing of information is with a view to instigating director disqualification proceedings.

As such, the regulator is already able to share information with the Insolvency Service where it has identified persistent wrongdoing by a director or where it has already taken regulatory action. Under Section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Insolvency Service is then able to apply to the court for a disqualification order on behalf of the Secretary of State, based on investigative material provided by other agencies or departments. Whether or not the Insolvency Service takes action to disqualify a director on the basis of information provided by others, such as the Pensions Regulator, will depend upon its assessment of the case in question. The Pensions Regulator and the Insolvency Service regularly engage with each other to discuss areas of joint interest. They continue to monitor the effectiveness of the disclosure process and are taking steps to streamline it when necessary. This will help to ensure that the organisations are able to work together to achieve successful outcomes and better protect the public.

In summary, the amendment is looking to introduce a process which is already in place. The Pensions Regulator and the Insolvency Service continue to work closely together to streamline this disclosure process and ensure that both organisations have a good working knowledge of each other’s remits. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

I thank the Minister for that explanation. I think that there are two provisions within the Company Directors Disqualification Act: the ones with the Insolvency Service tend to be based around purely financial mechanisms. I will carefully read the response in Hansard to see whether it covers everything that I envisaged it should. I am a little suspicious that it does not; there would otherwise not be the provision of Section 8(1) and its very careful amendment in 2015. As the Committee might expect, I have had some communication with QCs who deal with these kinds of issues. If it is covered, I am happy; if not, I would like to see whether we can tighten it up. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.

Amendments 34 to 36 not moved.

Clause 116 agreed.

Schedule 7 agreed.

Clause 117 agreed.

Schedule 8 agreed.

Clause 118: Qualifying pensions dashboard service

Amendment 37

Moved by

[Baroness Drake]

37: Clause 118, page 105, line 4, after “service” insert “(which may be publicly or privately owned)”

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 37, 47, 48, 60 and 61. Amendments 37, 47 and 60 place in the Bill that there can and will be a publicly owned pensions dashboard. The Minister may give ministerial assurances that it is intended that there will be a public dashboard; unfortunately, ministerial Statements have currency only until the next occupant. There is no requirement in this Bill as drafted that would require a future Secretary of State to make such a provision.

The amendments require that the dashboard ecosystem will include a publicly owned dashboard. The Government’s current policy,

“supports the coordination of an industry-led dashboard”—

leading—

“to the creation of a dashboard service designed, developed and owned by industry”.

The whole of the UK’s second-tier pension system will be mandated to participate in dashboards owned in the industry, giving rise to major public good considerations, yet nowhere in that wording is there a requirement to set up a publicly owned dashboard, nor is there one in the Bill.

The DWP feasibility study launched at the end of 2018 set out a clear direction of travel towards a single non-commercial dashboard before moving towards multiple dashboards. By April 2019, in responding to the consultation on their study, the Government had shifted their view to commencing with the simultaneous testing of commercial dashboards. Of the 125 replies to the consultation, 15 were from individual citizens and according to my calculation, nearly 60% were from financial service providers and associated trade bodies and six were from consumer bodies. By late 2019, in a previous version of this Bill, and in this Bill and its impact assessment for this version, commitment to a publicly owned dashboard has faded further.

Amendments 48 and 61 do not prevent commercial dashboards being authorised. They seek to ensure that the Government secure a level of confidence in operational delivery, security, consumer protection and insights into customer behaviour by commencing with a publicly owned pension dashboard for at least a year, and that the Secretary of State should lay before each House of Parliament a review of that service before commercial dashboards enter the market. A year is not a long time, given the scale of the consumer interest. If the Secretary of State believes that there is good reason for taking longer than a year, then my noble friend Lady Sherlock and I will be guilty only of prescience.

18:45

Part 4, together with Schedule 9, grants significant regulation-making powers. As the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, observes:

“These powers are skeletal as the scheme has not yet been developed ... There is a need for some of these powers in order to commence the work on pensions dashboards … the rest of the powers could have been omitted until the policy had been prepared and sample regulations produced for consideration as part of a future bill.”

The committee, while recognising that pension issues can be complex, concludes that,

“complexity is not an excuse for taking powers in lieu of policy development.”

Policy and key decisions have not been settled on some fundamental issues. I may not go as far as the observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, at Second Reading, who said:

“I have to say that this is at best a half-baked policy. We have no idea exactly how this will work.”—Official Report, 28/1/20; col. 1382.]

I do not go that far, but I fundamentally believe that the project calls for some effective risk controls, hence the call for a first run of the service to be through a publicly controlled dashboard, followed by a report to Parliament.

Building a pensions dashboard service has complexities. Here is just a short list, by way of illustration, of some of the matters not yet resolved or settled. Different parts of the infrastructure will be owned by different people; what are the implications? Liability can occur at different points in the dashboard service, involving different parties, but we do not know what the liability model will be. A matter of importance to trustees is releasing their data and consumers seeking redress on detriment. The proposition as to the presentation of data is not settled. We have not seen the data-sharing risks impact assessment referred to in this Bill’s impact assessment. We do not know to whom or to what body the Secretary of State will delegate powers to set standards and how those bodies will be publicly accountable, an issue which the Constitution Committee highlights. How will the risk framework for the dashboard service align with that applied to pension schemes on scams? What will be the charging model for accessing dashboard services? When will delegated access to an individual’s data be allowed? That is a list not of criticisms but of necessary work in progress. Such unresolved matters require a check. Without it, scrutiny by Parliament is inhibited and the public interest is not well served.

The long-term savings market is particularly vulnerable to consumer detriment because of asymmetry of knowledge and understanding between the consumer and the provider, customer behavioural biases, the complexity of products and the irreversible nature of many pension decisions. There is a plethora of reports and cases from the regulators—the FCA, the CMA, TPR and the OFT—that confirm this. Their reports opine that competition alone cannot correct it. The dashboard will not mitigate all these drivers of consumer detriment, but there are multiple ways that functionality in commercial dashboards could create detriment if not properly introduced.

There are those who argue that the complexities are overconsidered and that pensions dashboards can follow in the slipstream of open banking. Exposing the weaknesses in that argument was done comprehensively by the DWP in its dashboard feasibility study—my compliments to the drafter. It set out how the open banking and pensions dashboard projects differ. To highlight just some of those differences, open banking is intended to create better consumer outcomes through competition in an area where consumers already know what they have and where. Pensions dashboards are intended to increase awareness and understanding in an area where many people do not know how much they have saved and with which providers. The architectural solutions for each are different. Open banking allows consumers to share their banking data with an authorised third party because customers know who they bank with and the digital architecture does not include a finding service.

In pensions, a finder service is required precisely to reconnect people with their savings or to keep track of multiple pots. Open banking customers authorise the service provider to access their data through direct authorisation via their bank account. That is not possible in pensions: most schemes do not have online consumer-facing platforms which allow direct authorisation. The dashboard model would have to support the guidance process through delegated access —an issue of some major significance—which open banking does not support.

The Government conclude that the architectural solutions are not the same and that key differences in objectives et cetera and their legislative and funding bases mean the open banking entity is not a viable option. The solution that is right for dashboards has to be found within the dashboard system itself. I am not alone in my view that the dashboard service should commence with a public dashboard. I will name a few of my—if I may presume to call them such—allies. NEST, with some 8 million members and growing, in its response to the government consultation, argued that,

“the Government’s focus should be on the creation of a single non-commercial public dashboard, with strong governance and consumer protections applied.”

The People’s Pension—a large not-for-profit master trust with more than 5 million members—in its publication Delivering Pensions Dashboards in the Public Interest supported a single non-commercial dashboard before moving towards multiple dashboards as necessary for the public interest. The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, much quoted by the Minister at Second Reading in defence of the Government’s position on many things, takes the view that the Government should ensure that they begin with the first dashboard with a single, non-commercial dashboard to ensure that the level and quality of customer protection is fit for purpose. Which? in its briefing states:

“The Pension Schemes Bill should enable the best possible dashboards to be created in the shortest possible time, starting with a Government-backed pensions dashboard”.

The long-term savings sector needs to harness the consumer positives which financial technology can deliver. It is behind the curve. The pensions dashboard has the potential to enhance private and public good if it is implemented well. The aspiration may be to improve engagement and decision-making and to resolve the problem of small pots, but we need to understand how the dashboard is driving behaviours, including any unintended consequences because the weight of current evidence—and it is heavy—is that in a market vulnerable to consumer detriment, individuals reveal powerful behavioural biases, and even the financially capable can make irrational and sub-optimal decisions.

Once the dashboard architecture is built, it should be tested exclusively as a single, non-commercial dashboard. This amendment recognises the complexities, the risks to be addressed, the choices still to be made and the extent of the delegated powers. It seeks to commence with a public dashboard service and that the Secretary of State lays a review of the structure and effectiveness of that service before each House of Parliament prior to commercial dashboards being authorised.

These amendments are not an argument against commercial dashboards. They are saying, “Get it right; get a level of confidence before you put 25 million people’s data out into a network of commercial services.” It is not only the private interest of the individual customer. If you are putting the whole of the second-tier pension system in the UK into the dashboard ecosystem there are huge issues of public interest and public good. I am not arguing against the dashboard or against harnessing the benefits of financial technology. I am saying that the challenges and the risks are so great, so what is wrong with trialling it through a public dashboard for a year and presenting it to Parliament? If the Secretary of State is confident, the Government go ahead; if not, and they need more time, we will not have done anything wrong in this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 70 and 71 in my name have much in common with Amendments 47 and 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, which I support. But my amendments are more specific, in that Amendment 70 designates the Money and Pensions Service as the public body, to which the noble Baroness has just referred, which would have to provide a publicly owned pensions dashboard. Amendment 71 stipulates a date by which it should be up and running. Without a date, there is no guarantee in the Bill that we will ever see the service. I will mention in a moment some of the slippages.

I assume that MaPS would qualify under the description of a public body from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. It is an arm’s-length body sponsored by the DWP, and the Government appoint the chairman and chief executive. It is funded by levies on both the financial services industry and pension schemes, but that does not preclude it from being a public body. We have been told that it is going to provide a dashboard. Page 70 of the very helpful policy brief says:

“The Government is committed to the provision of a dashboard hosted by MaPS.”


If that is a commitment, I see no difficulty in making it a statutory requirement, which Amendment 70 does. Without such a requirement, we would be entirely dependent on the private sector to take the project forward. As we saw from the Library briefing at Second Reading, it has doubts about costs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, has just reminded the Committee of some of the warnings about being over-reliant on the private sector.

I turn to Amendment 72 about the date. At Second Reading, I quoted from the Pensions Dashboard Prototype Project, which said:

“The industry and government hope to have Pensions Dashboard Services ready by 2019.”—[Official Report, 28/1/20; Col. 1372.]


My remarks were drawn to the attention of the project and the comment was hastily withdrawn. However, yesterday, I logged on to the ABI website entitled, “The Pensions Dashboard—your online pension finder”. That website has a 2020 date at the foot of the last page, indicating that it has been updated relatively recently, but on page 1 it said:

“The Government’s objective is for the service to be available to consumers by 2019.”


I expect that also to be revised in the near future—indeed, an email may already be winging its way to the ABI.

Against that background, my target date of December 2023, for something for which we are told the Government’s objective was for it to be up and running two months ago, is excessively generous. Reading the ABI website further, I found the following question:

“If the prototype has worked, why do I have to wait until 2019 to use this myself?”


The answer makes it clear that, in the ABI’s view, any delay is down to the Government. It says:

“The prototype has proved that the technological challenges of agreeing data standards, verifying people’s identities and reporting back in a secure and meaningful way can be done, but it is only part of the solution.”


It goes on to say:

“Setting up a service like this cannot be done by the pensions industry alone, but needs support from the Government and regulators to agree rules for how it will operate.”


That, of course, is what we are doing this evening. It seems that the ABI is ready to go and is just waiting for the Government.

I will put this in a historic context. In 2002, the then Secretary of State at the DWP, Andrew Smith, said that the Government would create a web-based retirement planning tool—the online retirement planner—showing people their total projected pension income. Fast-forward to 2014—if fast-forward is the right expression—when Mark Hoban, then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said:

“A ‘RetirementSaverService’ (dashboard) will be essential to support pension freedoms.”


Five years after pension freedoms were introduced, there is still no dashboard. In the meantime, eight national pensions dashboards have been launched in Europe.

19:00

Assuming the Bill reaches the statute book later this year, why should it take more than another 12 months to get the service up and running by MaPS? Will the Government, if they are minded not to accept my amendment, propose an amendment of their own on Report with an earlier date?

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendments in this group and have signed Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young. I signed it because I was extremely puzzled by the use of “may” in this context. I had thought that the Government had publicly committed to establishing a public, free-to-use dashboard under the aegis of MaPS. Can the Minister say whether that commitment stands? If it does, surely “must” has to replace “may”, as suggested by the amendment?

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Drake has made a compelling case for the importance of this issue as well as giving us a helpful strategic overview of the state of the long-term savings industry and the impact of this dashboard on it. Done right, a dashboard could in time offer a useful service to savers. It would offer a chance to locate lost pots, to view in one place all the different bits of pension, state and private, and to make a realistic assessment whether someone is saving enough for retirement. But equally, the risks are huge, particularly given the scale if, as my noble friend said, data for more than 22 million people are to be channelled through this platform.

This becomes a public good only if it is designed and delivered in the right way, with transparency and all the necessary safeguards. As my noble friend Lady Drake said at Second Reading,

“public good cannot be traded off against commercial interests.”—[Official Report, 28/1/20; col. 1367.]

Labour would prefer this to be a public service, but if the Government are determined to go down the road of commercial dashboards, it is clearly essential that there be one “public good dashboard” owned, controlled and governed by a public body. My noble friend has given us a frankly staggering list of organisations supporting this that are right at the heart of the industry, including the CEO of the Pensions Regulator, who told the Work and Pensions Select Committee on 26 June 2019 that

“there must be the public dashboard”.

It is really very simple: the public should not be required to use a commercially owned dashboard to access their own data, especially in a market so susceptible to consumer detriment.

It is quite extraordinary that there is nothing in the Bill saying that there should be a public dashboard, when I think everybody had assumed this was going to happen. The Minister said at Second Reading

“MaPS committed to providing a dashboard in its 2019-20 business plan.”—[Official Report, 28/1/20; col. 1414.]

However, a Minister telling us that an NDPB has plans to do something is not the same as legislating that it must happen, so our amendments simply require that there be a public good dashboard.

The MaPS business plan said:

“It is envisaged that there will be multiple dashboards connected to the infrastructure, but also that there is merit in a consumer facing dashboard provided by a non-commercial and impartial organisation. The Money and Pensions Service, as part of its business as usual function to provide impartial information and guidance, will begin the development of a noncommercial consumer facing dashboard.”


There is not exactly a sense of urgency there; it contrasts quite markedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Young, has described as the ABI champing at the bit to get going and hoping to have it done by last year, or at the very latest this year.

That is the second point. Even if Ministers seek to assure us that MaPS is committed to producing a public dashboard, we want to know that it will be up and running before any commercial dashboards are allowed to start operating. That is what Amendment 48 is designed to ensure. I cannot see why this should be controversial. If Ministers are confident that MaPS is on target, no doubt they will accept the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Young, and reassure the Committee that a good public dashboard will be set up. Would it not be obviously sensible to have that up and running to test the architecture and infrastructure before allowing private companies to set their own up dashboards, with the additional risks that will bring?

I suppose it is possible that Ministers are not confident that MaPS will have its public dashboard running any time soon. They could easily dispel that thought by accepting the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Young, or indeed ours. I believe MaPS has said only that it hopes to be one of the first. The state’s recent track record with large-scale IT projects, as those of us covering DWP know to our cost, has not been fantastic. If multiple dashboards are to be allowed to be set up all at once, and if MaPS is to take its time in doing it, there could potentially be a considerable period in which consumers will be able to access their data only through a commercial dashboard. That does not seem to be in line with what we understood the Government intended to do.

Our amendments are simply designed to ensure three things: that there is a dashboard which is publicly owned, controlled and governed; that it is free to use and does not display advertising; and that if Ministers are to go down the route of commercial dashboards, they do not do so until the public dashboard has been operating for at least a year, and the Secretary of State has been able to report to Parliament on its structure and effectiveness.

I would like to ask the Minister some specific questions. They are really easy—not A-level questions but low-grade SATs questions, which I have no doubt should be in her brief somewhere. I shall read them really slowly. First, when does DWP expect the MaPS dashboard to be up and running? Secondly, when does it expect the first commercial dashboard to be up and running? Sorry, I was looking at the wrong Minister. Thirdly, how many dashboards do the Government think we will have? How many do they know of that are being tested or in the pipeline? Fourthly—this is a biggie—will commercial dashboards be allowed to charge consumers for using them? Fifthly, and this may be at GCSE standard, I understand that alongside any dashboard developed by MaPS, a liability model will need to be developed. We do not have any guarantee that the liability model will be ready before commercial dashboards become available, even if the MaPS dashboard is not ready. Is there any way that there could be a gap between people using commercial dashboards and the liability model being ready? That matters because, of course, if detriment is created then we need to know how it is to be managed and where responsibility lies.

I remain very worried about what the Government may be creating without considering all the implications, and its unintended as well as intended consequences. I look forward to the Minister’s reply to our amendments and to those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young. I hope the Government can reassure us that they will in fact be committed to having a high-quality, public good dashboard established before the industry is allowed to get into a free-for-all.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for their valuable contributions to a debate on what I am the first to acknowledge is a significant set of topics. This group of amendments explores how privately operated dashboards will work alongside a public dashboard provided by the Money and Pensions Service. They also explore whether a public service dashboard will be delivered.

I want first to reassure the Committee that the Government are absolutely committed to the Money and Pensions Service, or MaPS, providing a qualifying dashboard service. Let there be no doubt about that; it was clearly set out in our consultation response Pensions Dashboards: Government Response to the Consultation published in April last year. The MaPS business plan for 2019-20, also published last April, subsequently confirmed its commitment to deliver a dashboard.

Furthermore, to pick up the sense of Amendments 47, 48 and 70, we entirely understand the importance of having a dashboard run by a public body without any commercial interest. One of the core functions of the Money and Pensions Service under the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 is to provide free and impartial information and guidance about occupational and private pensions. Read together with Clause 122, that ensures that MaPS has the legal powers to provide a pensions dashboard that includes state pension information. To be clear, I say that accessing the information on dashboards will remain free, regardless of whether a dashboard is provided by MaPS or another organisation.

MaPS will be able to include signposting to free and impartial guidance on its dashboard, as will other organisations, as that supports its pensions guidance function. However, MaPS will not be able to host any income-generating advertising. MaPS has no revenue-raising powers under the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018.

I turn to ownership. We expect MaPS to provide a dashboard on an ongoing basis. However, it is important for there to be flexibility in how that function is carried out in line with changing technology and consumer interests. Here I am talking about the medium to long term. We also want to maximise the Government’s ability to ensure that ownership of the dashboard is in the right place in the longer term.

On Amendment 71, I very much share my noble friend Lord Young’s desire for a dashboard to be delivered in a timely manner to help people plan for their retirement. However, setting a date in legislation may be counterproductive. It risks creating a situation where decisions are taken simply to meet a legislative deadline, regardless of outcomes, rather than to meet the needs of individuals. To my mind, more important here is that we ensure that the service is accurate, secure and consumer focused. Developing a service that gives consumers a single point of access to their pensions information is complex. There are 40,000 schemes of differing types, covering around 25 million people with private pension wealth. The staged onboarding of thousands of pension schemes covering millions of separate records will raise issues that are not currently apparent, it is safe to predict. That tells us that dashboards should be delivered only when the Government and MaPS are confident that they are ready, so that consumers can be confident in the service offered. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, in particular agrees, given her apposite references to computer systems that perhaps have not quite lived up to expectations.

Through Amendments 37 and 48 the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, also probe the question of introducing multiple dashboards alongside a MaPS dashboard. Having the potential to offer multiple dashboards at launch maximises the possible reach of this policy from the outset and could help to meet the differing needs of the many people using them. User research completed as part of the Government’s feasibility study and consultation showed that individuals may prefer to use a dashboard provided by an organisation with which they already have a relationship—for example, their employer—due to higher levels of familiarity and trust. It is a case of one step at a time, however.

I hope that the Committee is reassured that the information shown on all dashboards, public or private, will be the same, and based on user testing. We also intend all dashboards to start with a limited functionality until we better understand how individuals interact with their information.

A majority of respondents to the government consultation were supportive of multiple dashboards, provided sufficient consumer protections were in place. The Government have considered how to ensure that consumer protection, and accordingly we shall be introducing a new regulated activity under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to reflect the provision of dashboard services. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, we will cover this issue in more detail later.

Clause 118 provides the power to set out detailed requirements “for qualifying pensions dashboards”. It is also likely that this will be linked to the new regulated activity outlined by the Financial Conduct Authority. These are all provisions to ensure consumer protection in relation to privately run dashboards. Our job is to put that consumer protection regime in place, but, once it is in place, we do not wish to constrain the potential reach of the policy. Nor do we wish unnecessarily to limit consumer choice.

19:15

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked a number of questions. One was whether I could reassure her that pension schemes will not find themselves contravening any GDPR rules when they respond to a request received by the pension finder service. A request of that kind will inevitably be a subject access request from an individual to the data controller to view their data. The individual’s identity will have been verified to the agreed standard, so the pension scheme can be confident about who is making the request. Only the Money and Pensions Service and qualifying pensions dashboard providers that meet the requirements set out in regulations and operate to agreed standards will be able to connect to the dashboard infrastructure. Any request to search for consumers’ pension information that is not received from the pension finder service will not be provided via pensions dashboards.

The noble Baroness also referred to the issues raised by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee about the nature of the skeletal powers in the Bill, and the whole issue of delegated powers. Perhaps I may say, very respectfully, that the noble Baroness was slightly unfair on your Lordships’ committee. As it acknowledged, enacting skeletal provisions was done for a purpose, which was to provide momentum to the process of co-operation that will be required to develop the dashboard infrastructure. The delegated powers memorandum set out why that approach was taken, and the need to reflect what is a dynamic technical environment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, also asked what steps the Government were taking to ensure that consumers did not fall victim to scammers. I accept the importance of that issue and hope we are sufficiently seized of it. The dashboards will be designed to prevent consumers’ data being unlawfully harvested. Only qualifying dashboard providers and the dashboard provided by the Money and Pensions Service will be permitted to connect to the system and have access to the pension finder service, which is the route for displaying information from pension schemes. We should remember at all times that it will be consumers who have control over who can access information, and that they will be able to revoke their consent at any time. In addition, before guiders and financial advisers can view any pensions information, they will be required to prove their identity, and that they are on the list of registered financial advisers.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, asked about the liability model. We will—I suspect on Monday—come to Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and I intend to cover the liability model then, if the Committee will allow.

My noble friend Lord Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, pressed me on when we believe pensions dashboards will actually materialise. I need hardly say that we are keen to see dashboards available as soon as possible, to help consumers plan for their retirement. However, as I have explained, it is important that we ensure that the service designed is accurate, secure and consumer focused. I repeat that this is a very complex business. It is important that we do not rush it and that the design and functionality of the service is right. That is why we have asked the Money and Pensions Service to convene an industry delivery group. That group will lead the design and development of the infrastructure that will support the delivery of dashboards.

I am afraid that all this will take a bit of time. The dates that my noble friend referred to, which apparently still appear on the ABI website, were, in hindsight, somewhat heroic. We have to live with the reality that we find ourselves in, but I can tell my noble friend that MaPS and the industry delivery group intend to set out their approach for the year ahead by Easter. By then, we should have at least the outline of a plan, with milestones I hope, so that we can be a little clearer on the answer to the question that he raised.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and my noble friend referred to the ABI commentary on the need for a commercial dashboard. The ABI briefing for Committee showed that, in its research, 49% of respondents were comfortable accessing information from pension providers, 47% from online banking, 32% by a mobile app and 20% from a government service. That is quite a revealing set of findings. The first figure that I quoted, 49%, tells a particularly powerful story.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked several very simple questions, some of which I have answered. One was about how many commercial dashboards are currently under development. We do not have an answer to that. There has, however, been significant interest from around the industry, and I can only suppose that we will get greater clarity on that over the coming months. I am sorry that I cannot be more illuminating on that point.

I should just say, as I do not think I have made this clear, that we cannot see any reason why commercial dashboards should not be available at the same time as the publicly owned and funded dashboard, as long as they meet the criteria. It could be that the publicly funded dashboard will be launched first and be first in class, and that others will follow. On the other hand, it could equally be that we will see a range of dashboards emerging at more or less the same time. I am not able to predict which of those will happen, but we are open to both scenarios.

I think that covers the main points. I would like noble Lords to be reassured that, as we move forward with this process, the way that dashboards develop will be kept under regular review by the industry delivery group, the regulators and the Government. User interests are, and will remain, central to the delivery and development of dashboards, and I restate the Government’s commitment that the Money and Pensions Service will provide a dashboard.

I hope that this provides the Committee with the necessary clarity, certainty and—

[Baroness Altmann]

I hope my noble friend will forgive me for intervening, but after what he has just said, it is important to put on record that there are potentially significant dangers in launching commercial dashboards at the same time as the publicly funded dashboard. It is likely that that will generate enormous confusion in the consumer. It is entirely possible that consumers will not know which dashboard is which and will be driven to a commercial dashboard, which may not be in their impartial interests. I urge my noble friend to consider carefully that there are really strong and important reasons from a consumer protection perspective to have this publicly funded dashboard first, especially as the Government have devoted so much resource and commitment to providing it.

[Earl Howe]

I say—gently—to my noble friend that I could not disagree more. I cannot see the risks that she has articulated, given all that I have said about putting the necessary consumer protections in place before anyone makes the first move to launch a commercial dashboard. Having said that, I very much respect her knowledge of the landscape and would be happy to have a conversation with her about the risks that she referred to. But having thought about this in some depth myself, I am satisfied that we will not allow a situation to arise where consumers are confused or put at risk by the multiplicity of dashboards. All the dashboards will show the same information. They will not be allowed to show different information. They may set it out differently, but that does not seem to constitute a risk to the consumer or of confusing the end user.

Subject to those remarks, and despite the lack of clarity around the timing of the matters I referred to, I hope that the assurances I have given are sufficient for noble Lords, and that the noble Baroness feels content to withdraw her amendment on that basis.

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, this is the first chance Parliament has had to scrutinise this major project. I am not asking for the project to be rushed. I am the last person who would want to set up MaPS or the DWP to fail. I wish them well and to succeed. I do not have a negative view, but I want this project to work.

The Minister gave assurances that there will be a public dashboard, but it is not in the Bill. I could cite various previous occasions when Ministers made assurances about things but they did not materialise. If we accept, which I do, the sincerity with which the Minister has committed to there being a publicly owned dashboard, I see no reason why a little amendment to the Bill could not capture that assurance, so that the next Secretary of State does not change their mind.

On the ownership of the dashboard, I was actually rather worried—not reassured—by one comment the Minister made. He said that ownership in the long term, with a whole series of unknowns about how things will develop, is something that will need to be considered. That may be true; however, given those unknowns and that we do not know how policy will develop, the delegated powers in this Bill should not take to themselves the ability to make fundamental changes to the ownership of the dashboard. Because it is of such significance, that issue should come back to Parliament. Does the Minister accept that point?

19:30

I accept that some people may prefer to use their own provider’s dashboard: I can see situations where one would, if there is a high level of trust. However, I hope the Minister will accept that there is equally strong evidence that consumers want access to a public dashboard outside the commercial environment. Does he accept, equally, that the general public seek this?

This will not work unless the schemes release their data. I do not go behind that but accept it as something that has to be done for a dashboard to work. They are entitled to a level of confidence about the protection of that data and the liability when it is released. In the documents that we have, the state has protected itself: it has reserved that it may not release state data onto the dashboard. I do not want to go behind that. However, if the state is not confident at a given point in time to release its data for whatever reason, one has to ask why it is okay to mandate private schemes, since they will ask that question too. Does the Minister accept that that will be one of the concerns?

I was not trying to over-select—or select at all, in that sense—the Constitution Committee’s comments, and I accept that there is a need for flexibility in the momentum when building the architecture. However, that is different from having open-ended delegated powers on all matters of policy that might emerge on market and consumer behaviour.

In his comments, the Minister said that the dashboard would start with limited functionality, which is reassuring—that is the sort of comment I like to hear. However, on my next amendment I want to address where that functionality moves on. The delegated powers allow it to move on and there are no protections in the Bill for when the functionality extends beyond the collection and display of information.

[Earl Howe]

I will come back on a couple of points raised by the noble Baroness. The regulations that would achieve any future changes to the dashboard are subject to consultation and the affirmative resolution process. It comes back to what I indicated earlier was a step-by-step process. If the Government wanted to augment or change the content of the dashboard, they would have to do it in a measured and ordered way.

She also asked whether I believe that consumers want a publicly funded dashboard. I think that the answer to that will be revealed in consumer behaviour: if they clearly want it, they will use it, and we will know that. Of course, we cannot predict how consumer behaviour may change over the medium to long-term. That is the point that I was seeking to make earlier.

[Lord Flight]

I will make a practical point. Running up to the launch, it would surely be very useful to have extensive marketing and advertising of MaPS, so that citizens know what to expect when it is live.

[Earl Howe]

That is a very constructive suggestion from my noble friend. I will take it away with me.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, that had better not happen too soon, though, because there might be nothing to see for a while. I am very grateful to the Minister for his thorough response, even if some of it disappoints me. I am grateful to him for taking his time to go through the questions.

My noble friend Lady Drake, as always, expresses it more cogently and thoroughly than I do, but my problem is that the Minister is essentially saying that the Government are committed to MaPS producing a dashboard. This is not the same as the Government saying that they will ensure that there is a dashboard. My worry is that I do not want to see this rushed. I have been an adviser in government myself, when tax credits were being developed. I realise the problems that come out and I know only too well that when you develop new computer systems, you do not know what will happen until you press the button on the first day. However, my worry is that that is precisely what could happen here. If the Government are determined to allow commercial dashboards to go live whenever they are ready, what if MaPS then takes years to get it right? What if it never does? What if MaPS itself fails on another front? We could end up never having a public dashboard, in which case the Minister would not have broken his word but none the less a public dashboard would never have come to pass. If it were in the Bill there would be an obligation on Ministers.

I take my noble friend Lady Drake’s point about new incumbents. I have been in my brief since I think 2011 or 2012. I think that I am on my seventh Secretary of State. Given that one of them was there for quite a long time, there has been an awful lot of turnover since. It is not impossible that a new Secretary of State could come in and take a radically different view from their predecessor, as they have in my time, on some aspect of policy. It is not really the kind of assurance that we would want.

My worry is that the Minister has not addressed one point: if the Government believe that there should be a public dashboard, but are relaxed about the fact there could be a long period of time where consumers would be able to access their data, which the Government had mandated the release of, through only a commercial dashboard, why do they think that there should be a public dashboard at all? Theoretically, there could be five years between the commercial dashboard and the MaPS dashboard. If the Government think that it does not matter that there will be no public dashboard for that interim period, why do they think that it matters at all?

My final point is about the fact that the Minister thinks that there are no risks at all. I would like to hear this conversation between him and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, but I think it should take place in this Committee. The Minister defended the skeletal nature of the Bill. We will come back to this in the next group on Monday, but the Constitution Committee was quite explicit in saying that the Government’s defence that the Bill is very complex, that we have to get on with it and that we should not worry because the regulations will be affirmative, is not adequate or an excuse for drafting the Bill in this way. Part 4 is almost a skeleton.

The combination of all this is that the Government are saying, “There should be a dashboard. We cannot tell you when the public dashboard will be up. Don’t worry, it’ll be fine because we will regulate it. We can’t tell you who will regulate it, or how, or any of the circumstances. We can’t even tell you how we’ll make sure the risks don’t come to pass”. The Minister says that the information will be the same, but can he tell me whether it will be displayed in the same way, who will decide what the information will be or what the time periods will be? None of these questions has yet been answered. We will come back to them with our next amendment.

The Minister is asking the Committee to take a huge amount on trust when we have literally no idea what the dashboard will look like. Yet, somehow, we are just meant to say that it will be fine and the risks are fine. I spent 10 years on the board of the Financial Ombudsman Service. Every year we had to read a selection of case files. I have a pretty long experience of all the things that have gone wrong in sectors where the Government were confident they were well regulated and controlled, and where things could never possibly go wrong. My goodness, they have gone wrong in ways one could never have imagined when the regulations were being framed.

I am glad that the Minister is confident that there are low risks. I do not share his confidence, but maybe I am an old cynic. I would be interested if he could respond in particular to the point about why there needs to be a public dashboard at all if the Government do not mind whether there is not one for as long as it takes for MaPS to catch up. Can he answer that point?

[Earl Howe]

I believe I am right in saying that while your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee had some trenchant things to say about the delegated powers in the rest of the Bill, it felt pretty relaxed about the powers in Part 4, because it recognised that it was absolutely necessary to have the kind of flexibility I referred to. We must take it that the committee looked at these matters in some depth. Clearly, it did not feel constrained in criticising the nature of the powers in other parts of the Bill. I think the delegated powers here are necessary. I do not think we should be frightened of them, but I can see that the accumulation of them might appear off-putting to noble Lords.

[Baroness Drake]

I am conscious that I was a member of the Constitution Committee. The issue is not that simply the Government do or do not want flexibility. The issue is that such extensive delegated powers are being taken in the absence of significant areas of policy being settled. That is not the correct way to approach legislation.

[Earl Howe]

I hear what the noble Baroness says. It is not that the policy is not settled but that the implementation of the policy is not settled. We know broadly what we want to achieve but the detail has yet to be worked through; including the functionality and the way that the liability model will form. We do not know all the answers; we know some of the answers, but not all of them. I do not accept that the policy as such is a blank sheet of paper.

[Baroness Drake]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

Committee adjourned at 7.41 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 26 February 2020

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Royal Assent

Royal Assent & Royal Assent (Hansard) & Royal Assent: Royal Assent (Hansard)
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

15:06

The following Act was given Royal Assent:

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020.

Brexit: Financial Assistance for Businesses

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial assistance they have provided to businesses in the United Kingdom to deal with the ongoing costs of staff training and administration as a result of the new customs rules brought in due to the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting businesses in preparing for new customs processes. Since November 2018, HMRC has provided grants to help support traders, hauliers and the customs intermediary sector. This has seen some £34 million set aside to support employee recruitment, customs training and improvements to IT. Earlier this month, the Government announced the extension of the grant programme until 31 January 2021. Approximately £7.5 million of funding is still available.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Given the statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland this week that there will not be a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, and that EU Ministers warned the UK Government yesterday that the chance of reaching a trade deal will be damaged unless preparations begin for checks on goods coming into Northern Ireland ports from Great Britain, could he clear up the confusion in an unequivocal manner regarding the regulatory border issue? I understand that the London Port Health Authority has not received any such resources as those that he referred to, and I do not think that ports in Great Britain serving the Northern Ireland ports have either, so what additional resources have been made available to deal with customs preparations in terms of staff training and administration in order to comply with the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, as Northern Ireland will still operate under EU rules for agriculture and manufacturing products at the end of the transition period?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

The noble Baroness asked rather a lot of questions there; I will try to answer one or two of them. Northern Ireland will continue to be part of the UK customs territories, and practical information will be required for goods moving from the rest of the UK to Northern Ireland. This will be provided electronically, and the Government will work with the EU to minimise the impact to traders. Through the grant system that I mentioned in my Answer, we have seen 3,000 customs agents trained over the last 18 months, and that process will continue.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, the Minister has effectively conceded that there will be a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, but there is confusion over that because the Prime Minister is saying that there will not be. Either there is or there is not. Will the Minister confirm that any additional costs attributed to administering that will in fact be met by Her Majesty’s Government and that businesses will not be disadvantaged in any way?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, the negotiation is a dynamic process; we are at the beginning of what will be a very fractious negotiation over the next nine months. I tell those noble Lords with a gentle stomach that what we are seeing today are the opening remarks of the EU: it is going to get a lot hotter over the next nine months, and we will know more clearly probably by the middle of December.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities. I remind him that government Finance Ministers do not last much more than a year in the role, so he will not have to put up with too much. I want to make it quite clear that he is reflecting uncertainty and doubt, because that can only be the position that we are all in prior to the negotiations. He must know that the negotiations might even fail to such an extent that no deal at all is struck. Are the Government not in fact just putting hope over practicality when it comes to these issues? Have government answers with regard to Northern Ireland not been quite inadequate on every occasion?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind and warm words but pessimistic outlook for my tenure in this post; I now have a challenge to be standing here in 13 months’ time. We are in a negotiation. I cannot speak for what will or will not happen over the next few months. We have given certainty to businesses. We have said that we will be trading with the rest of the world in the same way as with the EU from 1 January next year. The level of tariffs and frictionality will be revealed over the course of the negotiations.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State concerning no border down the Irish Sea and the assurance of the Prime Minister. Will the Minister assure the House that unfettered and tariff-free access will be maintained for produce between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, as the Prime Minister’s spokesman said a couple of days ago, Britain will comply with the obligations set out in the Northern Ireland protocol but does not see that entailing new checks on goods.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has given the impression that he wants to get round the protocol, yet the government website tells businesses to prepare for checks at the border and for the costs of employing people to advise them on how to deal with customs. Indeed, the Institute for Government says there could be a hundredfold increase in the number of checks. Is it not the fact that “taking back control” means a massive increase in red tape, costs and potential delays? Do the businesses of this country not have the right to expect the Government to support them?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

I am not sure if the noble Lord is talking about Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom in general. We have intensively engaged with the 3,000 UK/EU-only high-value traders over the last 18 months—that is, £250,000 or more. They report a high level of readiness; 71% reported themselves ready in October, and that number is going up every month. Yes, there will be frictionality. When we went into the general election, our simple message was “Get Brexit done. Restore sovereignty to this country.” I know there are many noble Lords who are not comfortable with that but it is our direction of travel.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister recognise that he has indulged in a little bit of selective quotation? He has quite correctly referred to the statement that Northern Ireland remains within the UK customs arrangements, but he has not quoted the statement which is equally in the agreement and says that the customs rules of the European Union will apply to Northern Ireland after the end of the transitional period, as well as during it. Could he just tell us where those rules will be applied, physically and geographically?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, the protocol protects the all-Ireland economy. It also makes clear that Northern Ireland is and remains part of the UK’s customs territory, and it allows the UK to ensure unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland and Great Britain. In October, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons that there would be no checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland but that there would be some light-touch measures. That was reiterated by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when he too said there would be light-touch administration.

Pre-charge Police Bail: Time Limit

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

15:15

Tabled by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to extend the time limit on pre-charge police bail.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, on 5 February the Government launched a public consultation on proposals as part of our review of pre-charge bail. These proposals include extending the time limit on the initial pre-charge bail period from 28 days to either 60 or 90 days to more accurately reflect how long investigations take in complex cases.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley]

My Lords, whether a person is released on pre-charge bail or is under investigation, the aim is to gather more evidence, often using forensics. This week, the Forensic Science Regulator issued the Government with a stark warning. She stated that failures in forensic science were putting justice at risk, that the service was on a “knife-edge” and that there was a

“a woeful level of compliance”

in digital forensics. So no matter what the Government decide to do after the consultation, which the noble Baroness referred to, closes, it is clear that reform of bail alone is not enough. Does the noble Baroness agree with the regulator’s assessment and what will the Government do about the severe lack of investment in forensics, especially digital forensics, which are needed to deliver swift and fair justice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I completely agree with the noble Baroness that this is not just about bail versus release under investigation; there is far more to concluding and charging people than just those two things. She referred to forensics and she will know, I hope, that we have put £28 million into increasing forensic capacity. She will also know, I hope, that we fully intend to put the Forensic Science Regulator on to a statutory footing.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I encourage my noble friend to be very cautious about this for two reasons. First, by definition, it is not under judicial supervision. Secondly, extending the time limits would encourage the police to be rather dilatory in their inquiries.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, we fully intend to put this on a statutory footing. RUI has increased following the legislation we passed some two or three years ago, sometimes to more than what bail would have been. We have to look at this area, but I take what my noble friend says.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, when this matter was debated before the Government placed restrictions on police bail, police chiefs, the Police Superintendents’ Association and we on these Benches told the Government that these limits and restrictions were unrealistic. As a result, in 2017-18, 46,674 people were released under investigation in London alone, which is the worst of both worlds: allegations hang over the accused indefinitely with no power for the police to impose conditions. When will the Government start to listen to those who know what they are talking about?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I had a feeling that there might be an “I told you so” moment today. The noble Lord is absolutely right: he and others did question the length of time. However, I recall that I was quite clear at the time that we would review this and clearly it is time for review, hence the consultation and our intention to do something about it.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that this Question is very relevant to the subject of domestic abuse? She will know about the case of Kay Richardson, who was murdered by her estranged husband in Sunderland in 2018 after he had been released under investigation. He had a history of domestic abuse and she had reported him for rape. Under the previous provisions, he would have been bailed with conditions. The difficulty is that there are no conditions attached to releasing under investigation. There should be a power to release suspects under investigation where necessary with enforceable safe -guarding conditions. Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally recognise the point that the noble Lord makes about domestic abuse. Our proposals will ensure that bail is used in most domestic abuse and sexual offences where necessary and proportionate. The noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, the House will soon have the opportunity to debate a report on forensic science provision and the criminal justice system that the Science and Technology Committee, which I have the privilege to chair, has produced. It strongly recommends that the regulator should be put on a statutory basis. I know that the noble Baroness has just said that this is the Government’s intention, but it was not in the Queen’s Speech. When will that legislation be brought forward? Furthermore, forensic science provision, as she knows, is in dire straits, with private providers going bust all the time.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I pre-empted that the noble Lord might, rightly, bring this up. I know that it was not in the Queen’s Speech, but it is our intention to bring that legislation forward, and I shall keep him posted on its progress.

Saudi Arabia: Death Penalty

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

15:21

Asked by

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they intend to take in response to the report by Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, A perverse and ominous enterprise: the death penalty and illegal executions in Saudi Arabia, published in July 2019.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for her report. The United Kingdom strongly opposes the use of the death penalty in all circumstances. The former Minister of State for the Middle East and North Africa raised our concerns with the Saudi Deputy Justice Minister earlier this month. In September 2019, the UK was also a signatory to the UN Human Rights Council statement encouraging Saudi Arabia to end its use of the death penalty and to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

I thank the Minister not just for his reply but his personal commitment to international human rights. I tabled this Question because the report, published in July last year, indicated that there had been an acceleration of the use of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, including mass executions —beheadings—of as many as 37 people at a time, the majority of whom had been involved in a protest and were of the Shia minority. The abuse of human rights in Saudi Arabia should be a real scandal to all of us in this House. I visited Turkey with the rapporteur on extrajudicial killing to hear the tapes of the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, the journalist. We have now had an opaque trial, where it was impossible for the International Bar Association, for example, to have persons present during the trial. We now know that six people have been given the death penalty as a result. Are we inquiring as to what is happening and who those people are? Do we know enough about the outcome of that trial and whether any due process really took place?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I am glad that we were finally allowed to take this Oral Question after the publication of the report. I can assure the noble Baroness that, since then, we have been taking quite specific action. She rightly raised the mass execution of 37 men in April 2019; there were a large number from the Shia minority. We clearly expressed our grave concern at that time. Indeed, when I visited the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, at its request, in my capacity as Human Rights Minister, we raised all issues, including the death penalty. The noble Baroness raised the specific issue of the Khashoggi trial. In that regard, our diplomats on the ground did gain access to the trial and were able to observe it directly. As to what happens next, as the noble Baroness will be aware, there is an appeal process under way for those people who were given the death penalty in that regard, and there is little for me to add as it is an ongoing process. On the general point about the use of the death penalty, for minorities but also for minors, we continue to raise the issue regularly with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, as I have remarked before, the noble Lord has been in his post for some considerable time. Last May, after the executions, he talked about progress being made and positive engagement. Of course, underpinning these executions are further human rights abuses; it is not simply executions. Can the Minister tell us, with his positive engagement, what progress is really being made, and, if progress is not sufficient, will the Government use the powers they have to impose selective sanctions against those responsible for these human rights abuses?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord refers to my time in post, and I am delighted to return to the Dispatch Box. My noble friend from the Treasury has just left the Chamber, but I am sure he will be reassured by the fact that longevity in office is perhaps—as I look toward my noble friend Lady Williams—a trademark of Ministers in your Lordships’ House.

On whether progress is being made, in July 2018 the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia passed a codifying law on the age of criminal majority at 18 for some crimes within sharia law and capping the punishment for crimes committed by minors to 10 years’ imprisonment, so we have seen specific progress in this regard. There are exceptions to this on issues of national security. On action taken, particularly against people alleged to have been involved in the Khashoggi murder, I assure the noble Lord that we have taken action. I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister of State from the Home Office is here. The Home Office did act and we took action against a number of individuals in that respect.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I have given informal notice to the Minister that I wish to ask a question about arms exports to Saudi Arabia. Does he recall that on 26 September there were Statements in both Houses on behalf of the Government to admit a breach of an undertaking given to the High Court on 20 June that there would be no export licences granted to Saudi Arabia for military equipment that might be used in Yemen, and that there would be a fully independent inquiry? Why have the results of that inquiry not yet been published—if not for the courtesy of the House, for that of the High Court?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I do indeed recall that, and I have followed it up with colleagues at the Department for International Trade. I will come back to the noble Lord on the specific issue of the inquiry. I can reassure him that, since the review of that decision and the decision on the three conditions—one in particular that went against the Government—there have been no new arms licences issued to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I spoke in support of this report at the United Nations in Geneva? A whole audience unanimously agreed that only Governments could shift the Saudi Arabians’ atrocious use of the death penalty. Some of the people under sentence of death are students who took part in a demonstration; that is all they did. Although I commend Her Majesty’s Government for their efforts so far, what further efforts are they making to ensure that all the other Governments who care about human rights can make a concerted front against the Saudi Government on this matter?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Baroness raises an important point. Collaborative efforts on matters of foreign policy and on issues such as the death penalty do have an impact; we have therefore made a collective effort. I alluded earlier to the efforts the United Kingdom Government have made at the Human Rights Council, and we were pleased to support Australia on the broad concerns raised about human rights in Saudi Arabia. I add to an earlier point made to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we are seeing change and positive steps are being taken, as I saw when I visited. Notwithstanding that engagement, I assure the noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House that we continue to make an issue of a moratorium on the death penalty—as a first step, perhaps, to its prohibition—not just to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but elsewhere in the world. Our strategic alliances are important and allow us to make that case forcefully.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, for 10 or 20 years we have been hearing Ministers say that they have made representations to Saudi Arabia, and nothing happens. The Minister just said it is very important that we keep our strategic alliance going, so would it be wrong to suggest that if Saudi Arabia did not have oil and did not buy so many of our arms we would be declaring it a pariah state by now?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about my longevity in office: I was not here 12 or 15 years ago, as the noble Lord may know. On his general point, while we hope for better progress, progress is being made. Although small steps are being taken in the human rights space, we have seen progress on the issue of gender and an easing of restrictions on the ground, particularly in places such as Riyadh. Can more progress be made? Of course. While we continue to raise these issues, the fact that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a strategic partner helps us make this case, and I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to do so.

Wuhan Coronavirus: Tourism

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

15:30

Asked by

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact Wuhan coronavirus is having on United Kingdom tourism.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

I beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are working very closely with the tourism industry to monitor the impact of Covid-19 on the sector. VisitBritain has chaired two meetings of the Tourism Industry Emergency Response Group and has been providing daily updates to industry members since 27 January. The Minister for Tourism chaired the industry council just this Monday, where the Deputy Chief Medical Officer was present to discuss these issues with the industry, and the Government continue to monitor the situation closely.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, while the health issues are obviously paramount, global travel is increasingly being disrupted and restricted. UK tourism is already being seriously affected. Flights between China and Europe are down 37%. The chief executive of Walpole, the luxury trade body, believes that there has been a 70% downturn in Chinese visitor spend and many visitor attractions, hotels and restaurants are being hit. Particularly badly hit are the 20-plus members of UKinbound, whose businesses are totally dependent on the Chinese market. I urge the Government to encourage banks to be lenient and understanding with affected businesses and, more importantly, to consider deferring VAT payments to ease liquidity pressures on companies, particularly if the various problems persist for any length of time.

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Lord is right to point out the challenges to certain sectors of the tourism industry. As for working more closely with the banks on the impact of Covid-19, the virus is obviously impacting businesses across many industries, of which tourism is an important one, and the Government are working very closely with the financial services sector to ensure that the economy can negotiate this period. The Government do not have any plans to introduce a blanket deferral of VAT payments as a result of Covid-19 but, if our businesses are struggling as a result of the virus, HMRC’s “time to pay” arrangements allow customers with viable businesses more flexibility over their payment periods.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, one key aspect of tourism is international sports tournaments—the Six Nations, European football tournaments and the like. Are the Government giving any guidance on the handling of sports events, where of course large numbers of people will be congregating, many of whom will naturally and inevitably be coming from abroad to watch the matches?

[Baroness Barran]

I thank my noble friend for his question. In everything that we are doing, we are being guided by the Chief Medical Officer in trying to strike a balance between the safety of the public, which is obviously our pre-eminent goal, and making sure that events can take place. There are no rugby events, I understand, scheduled for this weekend. Future scheduling will be based on the best advice at the time. This is a rapidly evolving situation and work is being done on guidance in relation to mass gatherings.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister realise that the cessation of Chinese tourists coming to the Lake District is having a massive effect? But, bearing in mind that there are 19 million visitors to the Lake District and a local population of 40,000, should not the Government be thinking that there will be other dangers like this to the tourist industry that happen overseas? The industry itself should be working with government to think how it can be long-term viable.

[Baroness Barran]

As I tried to explain in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lee, the Minister for Tourism is working closely with the industry and the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Clark, will be aware, we recently announced a tourism deal to meet a number of the issues that he rightly raised.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the work that VisitBritain is doing to try to understand better what the impact will be of this awful situation. I looked at its website this morning and noticed that it was still suggesting that there will be an increase in overseas visitors this year of some 2.9% and a growth in income from £25 billion to £26.6 billion. Does she have current figures to share with the House? Are there any plans that are not just reliant on hope, such as suggesting staycations and other ways in which we might increase the volume of traffic to those who have to suffer disbenefit, from internal resources?

[Baroness Barran]

Obviously, VisitBritain is responsible for the data on its website. I asked the same questions of officials that the noble Lord put to me. Rightly, the view is that there are many moving parts to this and that trying to come up with a number is probably not helpful. What is helpful is to be in constant communication with the sector, listening and engaging with it, and working across government, which is what we are doing.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard of the difficulties faced by the tourism industry being made worse by coronavirus. Does the noble Baroness accept that we could help the industry by doing as other European countries have done and reducing VAT on accommodation and attractions, thereby giving some £5 billion over 10 years to the Treasury, increasing our trade balance by £23 billion and creating 120,000 jobs? Does she agree with those figures and what has her department done to try to persuade the Treasury of the merit of the case, so that we can help our tourism industry?

[Baroness Barran]

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I am not aware of any plans to review VAT on tourism at the moment.

Office for Science Quality Assessment Bill [HL]

1st reading & 1st reading (Hansard) & 1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:37

A Bill to establish an Office for Science Quality Assessment within the National Audit Office; and to authorise the Comptroller and Auditor-General to assess any research used as a basis of published policy by a public department.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Lilley, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:38

Moved by

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Fisheries Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 8; Schedule 1; Clauses 9 to 13; Schedule 2; Clauses 14 to 18; Schedule 3; Clauses 19 to 22; Schedule 4; Clauses 23 to 27; Schedule 5; Clauses 28 to 33; Schedule 6; Clause 34 ; Schedule 7; Clauses 35 to 42; Schedule 8; Clauses 43 and 44; Schedule 9; Clause 45; Schedule 10; Clauses 46 to 51; Title.

Motion agreed.

NHS Funding Bill (Money Bill)

3rd reading & 2nd reading & Committee negatived & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Second Reading (and remaining stages)

15:38

Moved by

[Lord Bethell]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, the NHS is the top priority of the British people and this Government. The NHS itself has a long-term plan to transform services in this country and to ensure that it continues to deliver world-class care for everyone while transforming itself into a sustainable service fit to face the challenges of the 21st century.

To deliver this plan, the NHS has told us how much funding it needs, and this Government are providing it—£33.9 billion extra a year by 2024. Through this Bill, we will provide the NHS with the financial certainty of a fully costed financial settlement over the next four years. Let me be clear about those numbers. This Bill will guarantee that the NHS budget will rise from £121 billion in 2019-20 to £148 billion in 2023-24.

This is the first time any Government have placed such a commitment to public services in legislation. By putting this commitment into law, the Bill removes any political uncertainty around the level of funding for the NHS. In doing so, it gives the NHS the stability it needs to plan for how to deliver the long-term plan over the next four years. This multiyear funding settlement means the NHS is no longer confined to planning on an inefficient annual cycle in which long-term interests can become obscured by short-term uncertainties about future funding.

Instead, this Bill means that the NHS can make investments now, confident that it will have the money it said it needs in future. This is better not just for patients, who will continue to get a world-class service fit for the 21st century, or for the workforce, who can focus on what they do best—delivering clinical excellence—but for taxpayers. It is not just me saying it; this is what the NHS is saying. Sir Simon Stevens said:

“we can now face the next five years with renewed certainty. This … settlement provides the funding we need to shape a long-term plan for key improvements in cancer, mental health and other critical services.”

By bringing forward this legislation, the Government are giving an ironclad guarantee to protect this NHS funding. It creates a double-lock commitment that places a legal duty on both the Secretary of State and the Treasury to uphold this minimum level of NHS revenue funding over the next four years. This point is very important: the legislation explicitly states that the Bill establishes a floor, not a ceiling, for how much we spend on our most vital and valued public service.

I will give noble Lords some examples of what this money will be spent on. The financial stability will give the NHS the space to invest in innovative technology and harness digital revolutions, to move services into the community so that people are treated in the right place at the right time, and to work together to design modern, integrated health services.

During the engagement with noble Lords, and in the other place, there was, quite rightly, significant interest in particular budget items. The area of most concern was undoubtedly mental health funding, which came up time and again. Within this financial settlement, spending on mental health will rise by an additional £2.3 billion by 2023-24, meaning it will increase faster than spending on physical health, which represents a significant step in moving towards proper parity of esteem. This historic level of investment in mental health will ensure that the Government can drive forward one of the most ambitious mental health reform programmes anywhere in Europe.

This funding will improve access to evidence-based and meaningful care for 370,000 additional adults by 2023-24. This will include, for example, adults with eating disorders, people with complex mental health difficulties who are diagnosed with personality disorders, and people with mental health rehabilitation needs.

This funding will deliver our commitment that 345,000 additional children and young people will be able to access mental health services and school-based mental health support teams by 2023-24. This will mean that by 2023-24 there will be a comprehensive offer for 0 to 25 year-olds that reaches across mental health services for children and young people and adults. Access standards for children and young people’s eating disorder services will be maintained, and there will be 24/7 mental health crisis care provision for children and young people in general hospitals and the community in every area of the country. We are not there yet, but this Government recognise that our mental health and our physical health must be seen on an equal footing. They are working hard to ensure that mental health is treated as seriously as physical health.

Let me give some other ideas of what else the funding in this Bill will deliver. It will help to create 50 million more GP appointments each year so that we can reduce the time people have to wait to see a GP. It will pay for new cancer screening programmes and faster diagnosis so that we can save the lives of 55,000 more people with cancer by 2030. It will pay for the prevention, detection and treatment of cardiovascular disease so that we can prevent 150,000 strokes and heart attacks by 2030.

This funding will help us to create more services in the community, closer to home, with pharmacies playing a much bigger role. It will allow the NHS to invest in innovative technology such as genomics and artificial intelligence, to create more precise, more personalised and more effective treatments. It will also allow the NHS to upgrade outdated technology to save time for staff and save the lives of patients. Above all, the record funding in the Bill will allow everyone in the NHS to work together to make long-term decisions about how the health system should be organised and delivered—not tied to what we have done in the past, necessarily, but driven by a clear view of what the NHS must do in the future.

Let me say a few words about funding outside the scope of the Bill. This £33.9 billion commitment is for NHS England’s revenue spending only. It is important to remember that, in addition to this funding, we have made a number of commitments that are outside the scope of the Bill, including on training and capital. On training, we made a clear commitment in our manifesto to deliver 50,000 more nurses. The latest figures show that the NHS now has a record number of registered nurses, midwives, nursing associates and nurses in training. But the truth is that we need more. We need not only the right number of nurses, but for those nurses to have the right skills, as nursing increasingly becomes a high-skilled and highly technical role.

So, from this September, we will give every student nurse a free, non-repayable training grant worth at least £5,000 each year to recruit more people into nursing. We are also expanding the routes into nursing with more nursing associates and apprentices, making it easier to become a fully registered nurse. We are also prioritising the care of our nursing staff to encourage more of them to stay in the NHS for longer. This new training package to get more nurses into the NHS is in addition to the funding contained in this Bill. We have purposefully not included training in the Bill, as the Government are working with NHS England and HEE to identify and develop a number of programmes to deliver doctors and the 50,000 new nurses. It would be premature to legislate for the cost before we have completed that work.

The NHS also needs more money for capital investment. Better NHS infrastructure is a major priority for the Government. Modern buildings with cutting-edge facilities and equipment are essential to delivering the NHS transformation we want to see over the next decade—40 new hospitals across the country, £2.7 billion for the first six hospitals alone, £850 million for 20 hospital upgrades and £450 million for new scanners and the latest AI technology. This is just to get on with those infrastructure schemes that have already been given the green light; there will be more. More capital funding will be allocated as plans are developed and costed. We do not want to include it in this Bill before the plans have been fully worked out. There will therefore be additional funding for areas that are not covered by this Bill, including public health and social care; they will be dealt with at future fiscal events.

This is unlikely to be last word on the NHS that this House will have this year. We are considering the NHS’s legislative asks around the long-term plan and will respond in due course. We will, of course, be discussing the NHS regularly in debates and Questions.

However, for now, we have this short and straightforward Bill. It can be summed up in a single word: certainty. It offers certainty to the NHS, to its 1.4 million hard-working staff and to the country—that the NHS will have the level of funding it said it needs over the next four years to deliver the long-term plan.

We have an ambitious long-term plan that will allow us not only to meet the needs of today but to rise to the challenges of tomorrow. The key to that is delivering the investment that the NHS has said that it needs to deliver the plan. That is why I am proud to commend the Bill to the House, and I beg to move.

15:50

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and welcome the opportunity to take part in this Second Reading debate. I declare my membership of the GMC, trusteeship of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists and presidency of GS1.

Extra funding for the NHS is always welcome. The Minister was confident that the Bill would give the NHS long-term certainty and all the money that it needs to implement the NHS plan—indeed, he said that it has been given all the money that it asked for. I just remind him that most people in the NHS understand and are clear that the amount of resources promised is nowhere near what is required. When he said that the NHS was satisfied that the money was sufficient he meant NHS England. I remind him that NHS England is a wholly owned quango accountable to him and his ministerial colleagues. The idea that it speaks for the NHS is taking quango-land fiction a little too far.

The Bill is certainly a departure—setting out the allocation to the NHS up to the 2023-24 financial year—but the suspicion is that it is little more than a political gimmick that is by no means sufficient for the needs of the NHS. There is no legal or government financial rule requirement for such legislation; it has never been done before. I am at a loss to understand why the Government have done it, because, as the Minister implied, it is quite clear that the Government will be forced during this four-year period to put more money in to shore up the deficits that will inevitably be run up by the NHS.

Our debate of two weeks ago on the performance of the NHS told its own story. Despite the heroic efforts of staff, 18.3% of people attending A&E in January spent more than four hours there from arrival to admission —the worst performance of any January since records began. The target on treatment within 18 weeks has not been met for at least four years. Other targets are missed consistently. We know that rationing is on the increase, and there are many other failings in ambulance services, mental health services and services for people with learning disabilities.

Clearly, many factors are at play in this, but when we align austerity with workforce shortages—the estimate is of a 100,000 FTE shortage at the moment—1.4 million people with an unmet social care need and a complete failure to factor in a growing elderly population, it is little wonder that the NHS is reeling under the pressure. The settlement of 3.4% growth per annum over a four-year period is certainly less than the 4% that most commentators have argued is needed—I actually think it needs more. I remind the Minister that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—a former Chief Nursing Officer—said in our debate on the Queen’s Speech that the additional funding was not a bonanza and would serve only to stabilise NHS services and pay off deficits.

On deficits, NHS Providers trusts reported a combined deficit of £827 million and clinical commissioning groups a deficit of £150 million in the last financial year. The National Audit Office recently warned that trusts are becoming increasingly reliant on short-term measures, including one-off savings, to meet yearly financial targets. Clearly, many trusts in financial difficulty are increasingly relying on short-term loans from the Minister’s department, which, the NAO says in its recent report, are effectively being treated as income by these organisations, which have run up a level of unsustainable debt that reached £10.9 billion in March 2019. The NAO says that those trusts are very unlikely to meet any of that debt. Could the Minister say what is to happen to it?

The Bill is notable for what it does not include. The Minister acknowledged this. Little wonder that NHS leaders wrote to the Times at the beginning of this month, pointing out that the funding does not include areas crucial to the Government’s election promise of providing more nurses, hospitals and GP appointments. The NHS is facing a massive workforce crisis. The funding does not cover the education and training budget to help with recruitment and retention, nor does it offer any relief for public health and social care services that help keep people healthy and independent. The new migration policy announced this week, which excludes care workers as “lower-skilled”, simply adds more pressure to the social care system.

I have listened twice to the Home Office Minister’s response in your Lordships’ House. She blithely washes her hands of the problem, quoting the Migration Advisory Committee, which says that the care sector’s problem should be solved by the sector investing in making jobs in social care worth while. Have your Lordships ever heard such nonsense? How on earth, with the resources available, can the social care sector invest more in training and paying staff? At the end of this year, we will have an absolute crisis in the care sector unless, as I suspect, the Home Office is forced to reverse this ludicrous policy of excluding people coming to this country to help our care sector.

The Minister mentioned capital. The NHS was formed in 1948; 14% of its buildings are older than it is. He talked about the new hospitals. The backlog of maintenance is about £6.5 billion. The NAO produced a report that warned that the Government’s real story on capital is that in the past five years they have transferred £4.3 billion from capital to revenue to shore up the everyday finances of the NHS. The Minister is pinning his hopes on the NHS long-term plan to transform everything and make the NHS cope with the extra demand it faces. Excuse me for being a little cynical, but the NHS long-term plan is a reiteration of every plan that I have seen for the NHS in the last 30 years. It is based on the fiction that services produced outside hospitals will miraculously reduce the demand in those hospitals. Anyone who knows anything about the NHS knows that this is complete bunkum and that the Government have no chance whatever of getting anywhere near the targets that the plan produces. We will be carrying on the short-term funding crisis that we have seen over many years.

I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in his place. One of the best reports on health in the last few years was that of his Select Committee on the Long-Term Sustainability of the NHS. It highlighted what he, and those working in the NHS and adult social care, described as a “culture of short-termism”, with the Minister’s department and front-line services absorbed by day-to-day struggles. Little has changed since then. I strongly support that committee’s recommendation on the establishment of an office for health and care sustainability to look at likely funding and workforce requirements up to 20 years ahead. Like the Office for Budget Responsibility, it would give authoritative advice to the public, Ministers and the NHS. Ministers would still set the budget, and answer to Parliament for it, but it would allow for a much longer-term workforce and financial plan for the NHS, taking account of the demographic pressures that we face over the next 30 years. Would it lead to more resources coming into health and social care? Nothing is certain, but it would set the context in which the country could come to a sensible decision about how much it will be prepared to pay for health and social care.

The Government’s decision to legislate with the Bill for the next four years is, on the face of it, to fund an unnecessary political gesture. Legislation clearly is not required and the Government will never be able to stick to these figures when the pressures come incessantly into the system. If, in time, it came to be a building block towards a long-term sustainable future, the Bill would be of no little significance. So far, there is precious little sign of that.

16:01

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to contribute to this Second Reading debate, and—as it is my first opportunity to do so—I welcome the Minister to his new role. I look forward to working with him.

This Bill sets out the current long-term funding settlement for the NHS, as set out in the Long Term Plan published last year. While I welcome the fact that the Government have provided a long-term funding settlement to provide some of the certainty we have heard about, the key question is not whether legislation is needed—frankly, it is not necessary for the Government to commit themselves in primary legislation to something that is already well within their powers—but whether the funding allocation for NHS England increasing to £148.5 billion by 2024 is sufficient to meet a decade of NHS underfunding, to respond to an ageing population and to meet the plan’s commitments to raise standards in healthcare.

As alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and like many external commentators, I note that the King’s Fund, Nuffield Trust and Health Foundation have all said that an increase of at least 4% is required to modernise the NHS and improve standards. In big picture terms, the overriding concern about this Bill is that it does not apply to the whole healthcare budget. As has already been said, NHS England does not operate in isolation, and to improve the health of the population, it is essential that new funding is accompanied by equivalent and sustainable investment in public health, social care and capital funding. Failure to invest now will simply increase the strain on the NHS and store up problems for the future.

I will focus the rest of my remarks on mental health funding, which the Minister focused on in his introductory speech. It was a positive step forward that the long-term plan placed a considerably stronger focus on mental health services, with a commitment that funding for mental health services would grow at a faster rate than the overall NHS budget, increasing by at least £2.3 billion per year by 2024. That is an important figure, which I will come back to. For far too long, people with mental health problems have had to put up with second class services, with too many people struggling to access treatment and support. Decades of underfunding and neglect mean that services are too often delivered in sub-standard and sometimes dangerous facilities and buildings, and there are significant shortages in the mental health workforce.

With that as the overall context, I of course welcome the commitment that funding for mental health services will grow faster than the overall NHS budget and that funding for children’s services will increase faster than total mental health spending per se. However, we must not underestimate the challenge of ensuring that money earmarked for mental health services reaches the front line. This is the crux of the matter that I want to talk about. Although the additional funding for mental health is ring-fenced in the long-term plan, it is unclear how this will work in practice. We need much greater clarity from the Government about how they plan to guarantee that this money is spent on front-line mental health services. Frankly, it is impossible to gauge this from the data currently available. I will say a few more words about this.

During the Commons stages of the Bill, a cross-party group of MPs supported amendments to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament every year on whether the money received by mental health services was taking us closer to achieving parity of esteem. These amendments were not accepted by the Government—sadly, from my perspective—and, as this is a money Bill, we are of course unable to table any amendments here.

I was particularly enthusiastic about the amendment tabled by my honourable friend Munira Wilson MP, which would have required the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual report on spending on child and adolescent mental health services. In my view, this would have done a lot to strengthen much-needed transparency and accountability in this area. However, to try to remain positive, I noted in Hansard that the Minister replying, Edward Argar, expressed some sympathy with the sentiment behind the amendment and agreed to meet Munira Wilson and other colleagues to discuss further what could be done to improve the reporting on children’s mental health services. I look forward to hearing the outcome of that meeting and hope that the Minister in this House will make a commitment that he will report back to noble Lords on what happens in those discussions.

I want to explain briefly why I think that the CAMHS expenditure is so important. When you analyse it at a national level, it all looks pretty okay; it looks like it is going in the right direction. But this masks continued and really worrying inconsistencies in reporting by CCGs, which prevent parliamentarians and researchers being confident in the figures published at local level. For example, 34 CCGs reported spending less on services for children and young people combined, including on eating disorders services, in 2018-19 compared to the previous years, with nine of those areas having reported spending cuts of at least 27%. This is hardly in line with the public commitment to spend more in this area. I also find it baffling that CCGs which are reporting spending cuts in the dashboard are simultaneously getting a tick to say that they have met the mental health investment standard. I am really perplexed by how this is happening and, if the Minister can shed any light on this, I shall be really grateful.

Something that I have been calling for for some time now is a separate children and young people’s mental health investment standard with a dashboard, so that we can get a more detailed breakdown on the way money is being spent on services for children’s mental health, ranging from preventive to crisis care. In the same way that the mental health dashboard reports on whether each CCG has met the mental health investment standard, it should also report separately on whether each CCG has increased the proportion it is spending on children and young people’s mental health. In addition, if any CCG fails to increase the amount it spends, I really feel that it should provide a public explanation of the reason. Speaking personally, I would also like to see sanctions applied to CCGs which do not provide a satisfactory explanation.

There are a couple of other areas which I would like to cover briefly. One is the workforce. Mental health has one of the most serious workforce shortages in any part of the NHS, and securing and retaining the right workforce is probably the biggest barrier to delivering the Government’s commitments to improve mental health care. We know at the moment that, to meet the promises already made for mental health and to reduce vacancies and cover requirements, we need about 4,500 additional consultant psychiatrists for 2029.

Where are these people going to come from? The recent census by the Royal College of Psychiatrists showed that the rate of unfilled NHS consultant psychiatrist posts had doubled in the last six years and that one in 10 posts is vacant. Despite the shortage of doctors, our medical schools operate under a strict admissions cap, often turning away highly qualified and ambitious students. We need to double the number of medical school places by 2029 to train enough consultants to fill the roles already promised. I would like to see places allocated in particular to schools that have a plan in place to encourage students to choose psychiatry.

Substantial investment in expanding the workforce is urgently required and I eagerly await the publication of the NHS People Plan, which, I hope, will set out how the Government plan to address these shortages. It is vital that the Government use the opportunity of the forthcoming Budget to commit to additional investment to support the recruitment and training of mental health staff.

Finally, on capital funding—this has already been alluded to—the review of the Mental Health Act found that mental health facilities where patients are admitted are often the most out of date in the NHS estate. At times, they have more in common with prisons than hospitals. There are badly designed, dilapidated buildings with poor facilities, which all contribute to a sense of containment and make it difficult for patients to be effectively engaged in therapeutic activities. I was particularly taken with what the review said about how inappropriate it was that we still use dormitory provision in mental health wards for people who have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. It just does not seem right at all.

The Minister alluded to the fact that the Government have taken some steps to address capital funding issues, including announcing plans to build 40 new hospitals through the health infrastructure plan. However, so far, mental health has been almost totally overlooked in these discussions, despite the review’s findings. Therefore, I again call on the Government to use the 2020 Budget to set out a major, multiyear capital investment programme to modernise the mental health estate and bring it into the 21st century.

To recap, the Government must do more to ensure that the additional funding in the Bill leads to sustained investment in mental health in every local area in England, to address the shortages in the workforce and to commit to much-needed capital investment.

16:12

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new position and declare my interests as a past president of the BMA, a fellow of various medical royal colleges, and vice-president of Hospice UK and Marie Curie.

Yesterday, a letter went to the Prime Minister from the medical royal colleges and faculties and the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Nursing, urging him to

“accept the recommendations of the report Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 years on, and to go a little further.”

They announced that they

“are coming together to establish the Inequalities in Health Alliance”

and

“will be asking other organisations across the UK to join … particularly those representing social services and local authorities in all four nations.”

They went on to point out that

“The report published today by the Institute for Health Equity and commissioned by the Health Foundation, says life expectancy has stalled for the first time in at least 120 years. We are sure you know that there is a 15-20-year difference in healthy life expectancy between some of the new seats represented by the Conservatives, and others that your party has traditionally held. These disparities directly impact on NHS services, with emergency attendances doubling in the areas of lowest life expectancy.”


The letter goes on to say that it is essential that the

“government works with the devolved administrations”.

It points out that health is not in isolation and that

“earning a living wage is linked to healthy life expectancy”

and that

“Poverty has the most impact on infant and child health”


and therefore that needs to be focused on too.

The co-signatories to that letter—a full page of them—make the point clearly that looking at health in isolation is not adequate. Although we all welcome the funding that will be coming forward and the fact that it will go to the devolved nations, the problem is that it will be made on a population rather than a needs basis. The funding needs to be according to needs-based consequentials. Taking Wales as an example—I declare an interest as somebody who lives and works there—we have a population that is iller, older and poorer. It matches the north-east of England and is now reaping the disbenefit of all that happened prior to devolution, with the problems of poverty, industrial closure, and so on.

Wales, like the north-east of England, has been heavily impacted by welfare cuts. It now has protected combined spending on health and social care that is 11% higher than in England, working out at £3,051 per head of population, and there is a policy to protect social care. I urge the Minister and the Government to abandon the phrase that social care workers are “low skilled”. They are not; they are low-paid. They are very highly skilled. It is the skilled social care worker who will avoid a hospital admission and sound the alarm before a problem arises; and when it comes to people with mental health problems, learning difficulties and so, I defy anyone in this House to claim that they will be any better than a skilled care worker at managing a crisis in the community. It is very difficult work. However, there is no protected spend in the Bill for population health and, as the Minister has said, there is nothing on public health, but change will occur only through public health initiatives.

In Wales, we are tackling alcohol-related harms by bringing in minimum unit pricing on 1 March. I declare my role as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm. Minimum unit pricing is already in place in Scotland. We also have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and are trying to reverse our heritage of really poor health and lack of health gains in our population. However, in Wales, as in other less wealthy parts of the UK, we have until now been quite dependent on Objective 1 funding and the European Social Fund, particularly for the third sector. That money needs to be replaced. I urge the Government to recognise that not only is there a requirement for needs-based funding but they have a duty to replace the funding that has now been lost.

As I have said, across England the royal colleges are calling for social care to immediately receive better—and, indeed, sustainable—funding. This will alleviate the pressures caused by delays in transfers to care. There is no reason why people should be discharged late in the day. There is a fair amount of evidence that if people are discharged from hospital in the morning with a care package in place, the result is a lower number of readmissions and better long-term outcomes. Other than the fact that the system is completely gummed up and log-jammed, there is certainly no excuse for discharging people to their homes in the evening or during the night without adequate care being in place. There has to be integration between the sectors at every level, with efficiency built in, and that requires a new financial settlement for social care and finding a long-term sustainable solution to providing care and support for people in England. That will probably be one of the greatest challenges for England, Wales and Scotland in the future.

Years of underfunding in social care have meant that thousands of older people have failed to receive adequate funding for their care. Delays in transfers to care will continue, resulting in the accumulating backlog arriving in A&E. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has pointed out, the figures for A&E are worse than ever. That is through no fault of the A&E departments at all. In December, fewer than 80% of patients were admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours. This was a record-breaking monthly low and the 53rd consecutive month that the 95% target was not met. As well as 200,000 more people waiting more than four hours to be admitted this winter compared with the same point last winter, there were nearly 200,000 waiting more than four hours in trolley beds in corridors this winter, 56,000 more than this time last year. The number of trolley waits is almost six times more than last winter. These figures alone demonstrate the logjam that exists across the whole system.

Will the Minister, having announced that this is not a ceiling, confirm that the money to go for training and workforce, the money to go specifically to public health, and other funding will continue to be distributed as well to the devolved nations? As well as it being calculated on a population basis and the old Barnett formula, there should be a needs assessment, taking into account the sophisticated data that is now available from the Marmot review and similar reviews, so that the spending is actually targeted at the areas of greatest need.

16:21

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance, and shall endeavour to keep my remarks—like the Bill—brief. Having been part of the process that negotiated the funding that we are legislating for today, I felt compelled to speak. It took many months to reach agreement on what was to become the longest and largest funding increase in the NHS’s history, so I wholeheartedly welcome the contents of the Bill.

I would, however, like to make two points. First, as has been said in the Chamber today and as was acknowledged at the time, the job was not finished. Understandably, perhaps, the Treasury felt considerable consternation at announcing such a large fiscal commitment outside of a formal fiscal event. Therefore, a number of items were left on the to-do list for a later date: capital; education and training budgets; public health delivery; and social care funding and reform.

The Minister said that it might be premature to include those in this Bill, but I say to him gently that we have had several formal fiscal events since this spending was announced over 18 months ago. There have been welcome steps in these areas, but ultimately they remain unresolved. I will not ask the Minister to preview what is in next month’s Budget or the spending review later this year but I hope that the Government will use them as an opportunity to provide for long-term, multiyear commitments in these outstanding areas. If they do not, we will continue to face situations such as with the public health grant allocation, where providers do not know their financial position, with just over a month to go before the start of the financial year. Can the Minister tell the House when the allocations for that grant will be confirmed? Only if we invest in prevention, capital and workforce on a long-term basis will we create the capacity in the system for the extra money in this Bill to actually improve services and outcomes for patients.

The second area I wanted to touch on is mental health. During the discussions about the funding settlement provided for in the Bill, I had a specific aim: to ensure that the money and the long-term plan that accompanied it reflected in a meaningful way the priority the Government gave to improving mental health services. Too often the refrain on mental health was that, while all the work across different government departments and across society, from tackling stigma to improving workplaces and schools, was welcome, it would not shift the dial while mental health services were underfunded and overpressured.

I do not pretend that the funding we are voting on today solves that problem, but there were two important steps in the right direction, as has already been noted: first, that mental health funding would increase as a proportion of overall health funding in each and every year, and secondly, and importantly, that this commitment would be traceable and auditable. Alongside that funding, though, the Government committed to reform and in particular to updating the Mental Health Act, which dates back to 1983. Although I support the Bill, it is also, as the House of Lords Library politely puts it,

“an example of the Government committing in primary legislation to an action which is already within its power.”

In contrast, there are few areas of legislation that so directly impact the lives of individuals as the Mental Health Act, and it is overdue for reform. I therefore hope the Minister is able to reassure me that the time spent on this Bill has not been at the expense of producing the White Paper and drafting the legislation needed to implement the recommendations in Sir Simon Wessely’s excellent review of the Mental Health Act.

I was pleased to receive a Written Answer from the former Minister. I took heart that the White Paper would be published not merely “in due course” but in the next few months, although I am not sure where that sits in the hierarchy of government timings compared with “shortly”. If I am able to tempt the Minister to go even further today and specify a month by which we can expect that White Paper to appear, my support for the Bill will be even more fulsome than it already is.

16:25

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I join in congratulating the Minister on the way in which he has introduced this Second Reading. Clearly it is to be welcomed that there is clarity on the financial settlement attending the delivery of the NHS in England over the years remaining in this Parliament. I declare my interest as chairman of UCLPartners and chairman of the King’s Fund.

This is not the first time that a Government have committed substantial additional funding for the delivery of the NHS. On previous occasions when these commitments have been made, the regrettable fact has been that the performance associated with the additional funding has been uneven. This demonstrates that additional funding in itself is not the absolute answer to all the issues that face the long-term sustainability of the NHS.

Clearly, additional funding is critical; as we have already heard in this debate, the funding that has currently been guaranteed will play an important role in ensuring the medium-term sustainability of the delivery of important services. However, the reality is that one must be certain that the environment—the structural solution for the NHS to which this additional funding is going to be delivered—is entirely appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has identified that the long-term plan in itself identifies a number of opportunities by which sustainability for the NHS can be achieved.

Much of the long-term plan is predicated on the concept that integrated care is now essential if the delivery of health services is to be sustainable. The NHS long-term plan identifies three important integrations: between primary and secondary care; between physical and mental healthcare; and between healthcare and social care. In providing the long-term plan, the NHS has also made suggestions with regard to legislative change that might be required to ensure that the disposition of the additional funding, and indeed the delivery of the plan itself, is going to be improved. I know the Government have received those legislative suggestions, but they have yet to respond to them. In opening the debate, the Minister made reference to that and to the fact that further legislation may come before your Lordships’ House in due course in this Parliament to deal with those questions.

One important suggestion is of course a merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement. I wonder whether Her Majesty’s Government have found themselves in a position to take a view on that matter. Clearly it is at the heart of whether the system for the delivery of healthcare is as effectively constructed as it needs to be to ensure that this vital additional funding is applied in the most effective and efficient fashion.

Additionally, suggestions have been made that commissioners and providers may come together in joint decision-making committees such that, at a local level, the disposition of this additional funding is applied in such a way that the integration of services is achieved effectively and that this funding provides maximum benefit, both in individual patient care and the management of local populations. Do Her Majesty’s Government believe that joint decision-making committees, created on a voluntary basis, will have sufficient influence and power at a local level to drive forward the appropriate integration of services such that the delivery of care achieves the benefits that we very much hope will be available to patients and to local populations?

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made another very important observation earlier, which relates to the report on the long-term sustainability of health and social care from your Lordships’ ad hoc committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Patel. It is a very important observation that this Bill, which is laying out in statute guaranteed funding for the NHS over multiple years for the first time, could form the basis—the foundation—for a first step towards that broader, long-term sustainability for the NHS. Your Lordships’ committee report made a number of important recommendations. Some of those have already been adopted by Her Majesty’s Government in a number of different ways, so clearly that report has had impact and is influential in the debate with regard to the long-term sustainability of the NHS. It should be taken as a very important observation that the presentation to this Parliament of this Bill in itself is important but could provide for a longer-term approach to the sustainability of the NHS, dealing not only with financial questions, as this Bill does, but with the important structural issues that will need to be addressed if repeated increases in funding can be applied in the most effective fashion to achieve the goals and objectives that we all strongly support.

16:32

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my health interests as given in the register. I would like to contribute to this Second Reading debate by discussing NHS funding and by raising, in particular, the crucial issue of mental health and other complex needs funding, which the Minister and other noble Lords have recognised.

During the debate on the Queen’s Speech, I suggested that, as well as enshrining

“in law the National Health Service’s multiyear funding settlement”,

it would

“also be appropriate to enshrine in law the commitment to achieve parity of esteem and equality of access between mental health and physical health expenditure over the same funding period, rather than merely retaining it as an aspiration in the NHS mandate”.—[Official Report, 9/1/20; col. 384.]

Clearly, this suggestion found no favour with the Government, but it is worth making the case again today for significant additional investment in mental health and related needs.

Let us consider some of the reasons why this is so important—for example, children and adolescent mental health services, or CAMHS. Currently, on average, children and young people visit their GP three times before they get a referral for a specialist assessment, and then have to wait more than six months for treatment to start. Children are reaching crisis point before getting the support they need, and the number of children attending accident and emergency departments because of their mental health, in a situation of crisis, is increasing year on year. Similarly, suicidal children as young as 12 are having to wait more than two weeks for beds in mental health units to start their treatment, despite the risk to their own lives.

As Justin Madders MP, our health spokesperson in the other place, identified in the Commons debate on this Bill, three out of four children with mental health conditions do not get the support they need. Over 130,000 referrals to specialist services are turned down because, as demand increases, thresholds for access to care rise. Appallingly, 400,000 children and young people with mental health conditions are not receiving any professional help at all. We know that mental health conditions in adults often begin in childhood, so the failure to adequately invest in CAMHS will end up costing the NHS far more in the long run.

We know that mental health represents about 23% of the total disease burden on the NHS, but a mere 11% of the NHS budget is spent on mental health; and only 15% of that 11% is spent on child and adolescent services. It is clearly welcome that the NHS long-term plan made a specific commitment to add a further £2.3 billion to the mental health budget by 2023-24, but as the Institute for Public Policy Research has pointed out, to achieve parity of esteem for mental health services, funding for those services needs to grow by 5.5% on average over the next decade. The NHS planned to spend £12.2 billion on mental health funding in 2019, but the IPPR estimates that this needs to reach £16.1 billion in 2023-24 and £23.9 billion in 2030-31. So, what is the Minister’s view on this apparent huge shortfall in investment in the mental health budget?

Of course, not all mental health and related services are funded by the NHS. As the Centre for Mental Health has noted, significant elements of mental health support for people of all ages come from outside the NHS, predominantly through local government. The largest part of this derives from adult social care, but there are important contributions from public health—for example, drug and alcohol services, suicide prevention and smoking cessation programmes. While it is accepted that NHS funding is projected to rise over the next five years, social care has only one year’s funding agreed to date, and public health services are yet to receive information on next year’s public health grant. This will clearly exacerbate the severe problems in a wide range of support services for people with many complex needs. Do the Government recognise the fragility of this situation and will they announce a robust funding settlement for social care in the Budget in two weeks’ time?

This fragility is further evidenced by the state of the workforce, as we have heard. There were a staggering 8,000 mental health nursing vacancies in England in the third quarter of 2018-19, with vacancies continuing to rise. One in 10 consultant psychiatric posts is vacant, as we have heard, rising to a dreadful one in six in child and adolescent mental health services, according to the Royal College of Psychiatrists. These figures underline the huge challenge to recruit the nurses to meet the massive needs and demands of the service. I welcome the decision to offer maintenance grants to people in nurse training from September. This will help to attract applicants, but universities such as Salford, where I am pro-chancellor, and NHS employers will still struggle to recruit, train and, crucially, retain the large numbers of additional mental health staff required over the next five years, especially, as we have heard, after the end of the transition period following exit from the European Union. The Prime Minister has committed to recruiting 50,000 more nurses across the NHS, so can the Minister confirm today how many of those will be specifically for mental health and related services?

I have two further points. The first is about speech and language therapy. From my work with the development and rollout of liaison and diversion services, and given that core services now cover 100% of the country, I recognise the value of speech and language therapists. I certainly hope that, with the additional NHS investment, they will form a key part of the further enhancement of liaison and diversion services. More generally, as the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has made clear, it is hoped that, alongside reform proposals in the NHS long-term plan, this Bill will help to ensure the provision of adequate services for people with communication difficulties and swallowing needs. As it points out, there are many such people in the United Kingdom. In fact, 20% of the adult population experience communication difficulties at some point in their lives, and more than 10% of children and young people have long-term communication needs.

In areas of social disadvantage, around 50% of children start school with delayed language and other identified communication needs. People with a range of conditions will also have swallowing needs. These include people who have had a stroke and those who live with various cancers or neurological conditions, such as dementia, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease, as well as those with learning disabilities and mental health problems. It is clear that speech and language therapists play a crucial role in supporting these people, their families, friends and carers, and the other professionals who work alongside them. It is therefore essential that the appropriate level of speech and language therapy be commissioned out of the extra funding in this Bill, so that those people’s needs are identified and met.

Finally, on capital funding, as we have heard, this Bill enshrines in law only revenue funding, but huge amounts of capital are required to address such major problems as maintenance and repair backlogs in the NHS estate and replacement of out-of-date equipment. The Government have committed to 40 new hospitals but amazingly, only six of these have been given the green light to proceed. One of the remaining 34 schemes —which I understand is “oven ready”—is North Manchester General Hospital, now part of the Manchester NHS hospital trust, in whose area I live. This hospital rebuild is desperately needed to meet the huge healthcare needs of the population of that area. When the Minister responds, will he tell me exactly when this hospital development will finally be given the green light to proceed as the seventh of the Government’s 40 committed schemes? Will he also give me the assurance I seek that the investment identified in this Bill will genuinely lead to parity of esteem and equality of access for some of the most vulnerable people in the country, who are suffering mental health conditions or have other serious complex needs?

16:43

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, the Bill commits the Government to increase funding for the NHS by £33.9 billion in cash terms by 2023-24, with NHS England spending increasing to £148.5 billion by 2024. This is the first time that a multiyear funding settlement for the NHS has been enshrined in law. It also provides a long-term settlement to underpin the commitments set out in the NHS Long Term Plan. This is an important element of the Government’s programme and should clearly be supported. But, while the additional funding for the NHS is to be welcomed, this will be adequate only if social care is also properly funded. If funding for social care is inadequate, knock-on effects impacting on the health service will be felt. Indeed, the NHS Long Term Plan clearly states that

“the wellbeing of older people and the pressures on the NHS are … linked to how well social care is functioning.”

When agreeing the NHS funding settlement, the Government therefore committed to ensuring that adult social care funding is such that it does not impose additional pressure on the NHS over the next five years. While the additional £1.5 billion promised for social care in the recent spending round for 2020-21 is welcome, this is the minimum needed to keep the adult social care system afloat this year. Indeed, it is questionable whether it is even that. Not all this funding is guaranteed for adult social care. Local authority funding has not kept pace with demographic pressures. Indeed, cuts in local authority funding have been a principal focus for cuts in public expenditure.

Looking ahead, there is a large funding gap to be bridged if the system is to be improved on a sustainable basis. Only last year, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee estimated that improving care quality and addressing unmet need alone would require an additional £8.1 billion in 2020-21. Without specific commitments to fixing the crisis in social care, spending on the NHS will be severely undermined. There is thus strong support for an amendment to the Bill requiring the Secretary of State to report annually on whether the allocation to adult social care is enough to avoid negative impacts on the NHS. As it is, following a decade of underfunding, the commitment in the Bill falls short of what is needed to respond to an ageing population and drive NHS standards up. The increase is 3.3%, despite the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation all stating that an increase of at least 4% is required to modernise the NHS and improve standards.

Age UK has two key concerns regarding the Bill. The first is that it does not apply to the whole of the healthcare budget. NHS England does not operate in isolation, and to improve the health of the population it is essential that new funding is accompanied by equivalent and sustainable investment in public health, social care and capital. Failing to invest now will increase the strain on the NHS and store up problems for the future. The second concern is that unless robust commitments are made to investment in the workforce, the funding provided in the Bill will be similarly undermined.

When it comes to improving population health, prevention is better than cure. Analysis by the Centre for Health Economics has found that spending on the public health grant is up to four times more cost effective than spending on the NHS. By investing in preventive services, it is possible to decrease the incidence of many common conditions that affect people in later life and reduce the burden on the NHS. The broken social care system harms everyone, not just those with an unmet need for social care. Delayed discharges from hospital due to a lack of social care costs our NHS an eye-watering £500 every minute. To help the NHS, the Government must secure the immediate future of care by investing to shore up the broken system and by setting out a long-term, sustainable solution.

Despite the importance of prevention, public health grant funding for prevention services from this April has not yet been announced. This means that providers are unable to plan, and some are even having to put staff on notice of redundancy as they are unsure whether contracts will be renewed. This uncertainty comes on top of historical funding cuts. Funding to local authorities for the public health grant has been cut by £700 million in real terms between 2015-16 and 2019-20, putting essential services for older people at risk. Areas with the greatest need have been worst hit, as was confirmed by Sir Michael Marmot just yesterday. Cuts to the public health grant have been six times larger in the poorest areas than in the wealthiest. Meanwhile, the 10 most deprived areas have shouldered 15% of the reductions to the public health grant. These cuts risk exacerbating the difference in healthy life expectancy between people living in the most affluent and those living in the most deprived areas, which already stands at 19 years. They also place the Government’s grand challenge on healthy ageing, which aims to improve healthy life expectancy by five years and reduce health inequalities, at significant risk.

If we want to improve public health, investment in the NHS alone is not sufficient. The Government must provide sustainable funding to the public health grant and develop a comprehensive strategy that lays out how it will improve public health for older people. It will additionally not be possible to fulfil the commitments laid out in the NHS Long Term Plan or make the most of the new funding provided by the Bill without urgent investment in the workforce. One in 11 vacancies in the NHS is currently unfilled. Last year, £5.5 billion was spent on temporary staff to cover vacancies and other short-term absences. If current trends continue, there will be a shortfall of 250,000 staff in the NHS by 2030.

16:52

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)]

My Lords, I shall start my brief contribution on a positive note about the Bill. It is the first time for a considerable number of years that we have a Government who recognise that the NHS requires both additional and stable funding. That is something that the whole House should welcome.

However, the Bill is designed mainly for a political audience. It is certainly not the comprehensive framework for funding a world-class, integrated, 21st-century healthcare system that many across the Chamber would have liked to see. If it had been, it would have reflected the House of Lords report, The Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care which has been mentioned on a number of occasions; four of us in the Chamber were members of the superb committee of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Its report was a fundamental look at the way in which we should look for an integrated system, rather than try to find little ad hoc solutions.

The NHS does not, as the Bill implies, operate in a silo but is impacted by other interdependent factors, as many Peers have said. Capital adult social care costs, the challenge of educating and training a workforce and the application of ground-breaking technologies are just a number of the factors that determine health outcomes but do not feature in the Bill. As the Secretary of State and the Minister rightly said, this is only a floor, not a ceiling. They have also said that other proposals are afoot to deal with some of those issues, and we await with interest their arrival. However, having listened to a number of desperate pleas—and they are desperate pleas—about the future of mental health services, I will caution the House. Simply believing that we can add X number of mental health nurses, psychiatrists or consultants just like that is absolute nonsense. We need a totally different, radical approach to how we staff our health and care services.

I digress slightly, but 18 months ago I did a report for Health Education England on the mental health workforce in the future, 10 years ahead. I looked in particular at psychiatrists and psychologists and found that our universities are producing about 150,000 graduates a year with a psychology qualification. We produce 1,500 people with a psychology PhD, and about 3% of them go into the health service—yet we have spent all that money training them. When we ask, “Why don’t you—?”, the response is, “I’m sorry, that’s a different department. We can’t do that.” If the Minister takes nothing else from my speech, I urge him to think outside the box on this.

My main purpose in speaking in this debate is to raise an issue that has not been raised by others: medical research in the NHS, which is absolutely fundamental to 21st-century healthcare. I accept that Governments of all persuasions, from the Labour Government in 2006 and the Cooksey report right through to the current Government, have increasingly spent resources on health research. I declare interests as the chair of the Yorkshire and Humber Applied Research Collaboration and of the national Genomics Education Programme, and acknowledge my recent chairmanship of the Association of Medical Research Charities.

This Bill, with its provisions for stable, long-term funding increases, is an opportune moment for us to look at the potential of embedding research into the very fabric of the NHS, as intended by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said research should be a fundamental element of all activities in the NHS, yet that seems to have gone by the way.

I am delighted that we are getting a commitment of £33.9 billion a year by 2024. Whether it needs to be in legislation is doubtful, but I like that commitment. However, it goes nowhere to meeting the Government’s own contribution—pledged under Prime Minister May —to the long-term plan. The long-term plan committed to playing its full part in helping patients and the UK economy realise the benefits of research, as laid out in the Government’s Life Sciences Industrial Strategy. It also committed to incorporating key actions from the life sciences sector deals to make research and innovation one of the central drivers for progressing care quality and outcomes. Improving health outcomes for patients and the public will not be realised without further research and innovation. The pipeline of innovation is dependent on research taking place upstream as well as at the bedside.

Recognising the potential of research to lead to earlier diagnoses, more effective treatments and faster recoveries, the long-term plan—for all its faults, and I accept the very strident comment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that every Government over the last 40 or 50 years have contributed to this—made a range of specific commitments: for example, to increase public participation in research and to sequence the genomes of 500,000 individuals by 2024. The latter offers particular hope for those with rare genetic conditions and opens a door to individualised, personalised medicine.

By embedding research, trusts can make even more progress in improving patient care and outcomes by implementing interventions that research has shown to be effective and decommissioning those that have proven ineffective. Taking out those things that do not work is an equally effective way of not only delivering high-quality care but tailoring it specifically to patient needs.

Patients and the public tell us that they want opportunities to be involved in research. Some 77% of those involved in Wellcome’s public attitudes survey last year said that they wanted their medical records to be used for medical research. Studies also suggest that engagement in research improves the job satisfaction of healthcare professionals, which in turn boosts morale, helps reduce burnout, improves retention and has direct implications on the heavy financial pressures on many hospital trusts.

By research, I do not necessarily mean pointy-headed people in white coats. Research is now conducted by midwives, nurses, pharmacists, primary care and public health practitioners, medical associate professionals, allied health professionals and others. In the nursing standards, which we completed only 18 months ago, it is now a requirement for student nurses to be involved in research methods as part of their undergraduate training. The people who work with patients on a day-to-day basis, by their bedside, are the best people to spot things that need improvement.

For research to take place, sustainability of funding is required. Industry and charities are willing to contribute—and do so—but it requires the taxpayer to take the lead, and this is not always the case at present. This gives me an opportunity to commend to the House the work of the charitable sector, in particular AMRC, its umbrella champion chaired by my noble friend Lord Sharkey. In 2017-18, AMRC members, which include the Wellcome Trust, the British Heart Foundation and other major charities, contributed £1.4 billion to medical research in the UK. Some 31% of non-commercial research in the NHS—more than is contributed by the Medical Research Council or the NIHR—comes from the charitable sector. In the same year, charities recruited over 200,000 people into more than 1,300 clinical studies.

The prize for translating research into patient outcomes is huge. Today, the UK is regarded as world leading in translating research dollars into health outcomes, and this must be supported and mainstreamed. The opportunity that health research brings to lower costs and to produce satisfaction for professionals working in the service and better patient outcomes is clearly a no-brainer and ought to be part and parcel of this settlement, so we are not left waiting for some fictional figure which might arrive down the road.

17:02

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, I found this Bill slightly bizarre. I have been around government for about 50 years and I have never seen a Government come to Parliament and ask it to direct two government departments to lay particular estimates four financial years ahead. That is a rather unusual practice, so I start from the same position of incredulity as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. We ex-Health Ministers tend to be a sceptical set of fellows.

The figures in the Bill have a spurious precision, given that they are based on a cash figure for 2024 that was agreed with NHS England only—nobody else—in the autumn of 2018. I will come back to the issue of inflation-proofing.

There are many legitimate questions that we ought to be able to ask as part of scrutinising this unusual Bill—questions of interest to patients, taxpayers and the NHS itself. But I am told by the clerks that, because the Speaker of the Commons has labelled this a money Bill, we cannot do this through amendments at Committee or other stages. All we can today is pose some questions drawing on the excellent briefing provided by the BMA, NHS Providers, Mind and others. I also support the gentle chiding of the Minister by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I hope that does not get her into trouble with her Front Bench.

First, the sums set out in the Bill are 2018 cash figures with no provision for inflation-proofing. Do the Government really think there will be no inflation over the next four years, or will our old friend “improved efficiency” be brought in at some point to balance the books? Perhaps the Minister could explain why the Bill includes no provision for inflation-proofing the cash figures?

Secondly, as the Minister acknowledged, the figures make no provision for capital expenditure. Where is the money for the Prime Minister’s 40 new hospitals or the 20 hospital upgrades promised last summer? When will the NHS capital budgets for these four years be made public? Why are they not set out in the Bill? Why are there no figures at all on capital in the Bill, or is there really no agreed capital budget for the NHS 10-year plan? In my experience, new hospitals usually have additional revenue costs, so can the Minister say whether the revenue figures in this Bill cover the extra revenue that will arise from the capital programmes for new and upgraded hospitals?

Thirdly, the Government’s immediate two predecessors had a poor track record on protecting capital expenditure, as the National Audit Office has pointed out. Between 2014-15 and 2018-19, £4.3 billion was transferred from the capital budget to revenue with the result that there is now a maintenance backlog of £6.5 billion. Will the Minister clarify whether the maintenance backlog, in whole or in part, is to be funded from the revenue figures in the Bill?

Fourthly, what is to happen to the so-called short-term loans that the department has made to NHS trusts in financial difficulty? The NAO has said that such loans stood at £10.9 billion at March 2019. If they had to pay back the loans, some of the trusts would be insolvent. Will trusts with loans be required to pay them back, in whole or in part, from the revenue funds in the Bill, or will the Government write off the loans or reschedule them over a longer period than that covered by the Bill? Will new loans be available to trusts which get into financial difficulty during the period covered by the Bill?

Fifthly, as the Minister acknowledged and others have mentioned, there is no provision in the Bill’s figures for public health—an area that has consistently had its funding cut over the past decade. Michael Marmot has repeatedly shown that austerity has halted rising longevity and that health inequalities have increased over the past decade in deprived areas, especially among women. When will we know the matching revenue figures for public health and whether they can be agreed on a multiyear basis?

Sixthly—there are not many more—can we be confident that a lot of this new NHS revenue money will not be spent on keeping elderly people unnecessarily longer in expensive acute hospitals because of a decade’s, and continuing, scandalous neglect of adult social care services by a succession of Governments? Over the period covered by this Bill, we know from work done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that, on present plans, there is likely to be a real-terms gap in adult social care funding compared with service levels in 2010 of about £8 billion. Will the Government plug this historic gap alongside any new funding system for adult social care? If they do not, the NHS will continue to pick up some of the tab for underfunded social care from the extra revenue funding in this Bill. If the Minister cannot answer my questions today, I should be grateful if he wrote to me, because it would save me putting down Parliamentary Questions.

This Bill has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese, but I will resist the temptation to identify more. However, I want to ensure that there is government and NHS accountability for showing the spending increases for areas of service that have historically been neglected. I describe these as Cinderella services, such as mental health, community health, public health and children’s services. I would have liked to move amendments requiring Ministers to report to Parliament every six months on the spending and staffing progress in these historically neglected areas. Alas, that is not possible, but how will Parliament be kept informed of progress in these neglected areas? If we do not tackle them better than we have in the past, the NHS long-term plan simply will fail.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of whether the funding in this Bill will deliver the first part of the 10-year plan. In my time as a Health Minister, between 2003 and 2007, we were increasing NHS revenue spending by at least 6% a year to make good the historical neglect of the NHS in the 1990s. That rate of increase was pretty generous and could not be sustained, but if you neglect institutions such as the NHS for a long period and do not make good their historical neglect with a spurt of generosity, you will fail to put them back on an even keel. The figures in this Bill provide cash increases of little over 3% a year after a decade of neglect. This is almost certainly not enough to repair the damage and deliver the NHS sustainability set out in The Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care, which others have mentioned, the report by a Select Committee of this House of which I was proud to be a member.

I fear that the Government are deluding themselves, the public and the NHS if they think that the funding proposed in this Bill is anything like adequate to fix the damage done to the NHS over the past decade.

17:11

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I was going to welcome the long-term funding, but now that my noble friends have suggested I should be cynical, sceptical or chiding, perhaps I will tone down that enthusiasm. Nevertheless, I want to comment on the commitment to build 40 new hospitals. I hope that, regarding the procurement contract, the Minister can assure us that we have learned lessons from the Carillion failure. If not, there could be more disasters in the making.

The Library briefing document states that Mr Hancock stressed that the sums in the Bill were

“the minimum levels of funding, but actual spending could be more: he said they would ‘set a floor, but not a ceiling.’ He then listed some of the services which would be provided with the additional funds”.

I noted the reference to “more GP appointments” and thought that was to be welcomed, but the challenge, as a number of noble Lords have said, is whether we can recruit and train the new doctors and retain the doctors we have. The early retirements are a worrying indicator.

I welcome the Minister’s point about restoring the nurses training bursary. One might question why we took it away in the first place, given the huge number of vacancies, and what I regard as the shame of continually having to poach both nurses and doctors from overseas countries that badly need them too.

In talking about building new hospitals, perhaps the Minister can say something about the state of many GP surgeries, which require investment. If they do not get it, they cannot provide the additional service needed, which puts further strain on A&E. In a previous debate, I cited the problem my own local practice had. Here, I should declare an interest as a member of the patient care committee. New hospitals have to be staffed, as do existing ones. The figures have been quoted; I do not want to go over them again. However, I do want to refer—unsurprisingly, as an apprenticeship ambassador—to a couple of briefings I have received. One is from Unison, which quotes some interesting stats. It did a survey and 54% of trusts found that 80% of the money paid into the apprenticeship levy

“was unspent as at May 2019. For these trusts alone, that amounted to £200 million of unspent funds.”

Those funds are starting to expire and if they are not spent in the two-year period, they go back into the system—to the Treasury, at worst—or they may be invested in other apprenticeship levies. It is worrying because of the huge number of vacancies in the NHS, and because the Government have said that 5,000 of the 50,000 more nurses they promised by 2023-24 will come from degree apprenticeships.

I suggest to the Minister—I do not wish to convey only bad news—that there is an example of good practice. A briefing from NHS England described an interesting collaborative approach, involving three trusts in the Gloucestershire area, to recruiting and procuring assistant practitioner apprenticeships. They had different requirements—people for mental health care, for acute care and for community care; all vitally important. By working collaboratively, they have made significant use of the apprenticeship levy. My plea to the Minister is that he should try to spread best practice. That will be a continuing theme of my contribution today.

The Library briefing mentioned an issue which the Secretary of State has committed to and which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Willis: investments in innovative technology. The NHS’s record in introducing new technology is not good. As I have mentioned in a previous debate, when I spoke to a registrar in an A&E department, he protested that he still cannot electronically transfer patient notes from one hospital to another. One starts to despair—we are talking about much more advanced innovative practice, but we still have not mastered some of the basics. So there are some easy hits in that regard.

I concur with my noble friend Lord Bradley on the issue of children’s mental health. I should declare a personal interest—I have a granddaughter who needs a lot of care. Her family have had to wait a long time to get anything at all, which has had an impact on them. It is not just about the huge impact the child, their education and future; it is the family who must struggle with the repercussions. This underlines the importance of spending on mental health, which a number of noble Lords have referred to.

My next point was covered by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. We might argue with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about who has spent most. That the previous Labour Government did spend a huge amount of money is a legitimate point to make. We reduced waiting lists and made some significant improvements. I do not want to carp about it, except to say that one thing everyone in your Lordships’ House can agree on is that, when we are spending these large sums of money, we want to get the best bang for our buck, to use that cliché.

I was really interested in a comment made, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I had never thought about the role of all NHS staff in providing research. He made a really interesting point. There is a lot of knowledge, experience and good practice out there, which needs to be considered if you are going to spend these significant sums of money. Can the Minister say how the Government are going to spread best practice? Have they adopted this as a necessary strategy? I wish them well, because the view that we need this to succeed for the future of the National Health Service crosses all boundaries in this House.

17:20

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my presidency of the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, and my other interests in the register. The Royal College of Occupational Therapists and several other charities have published the Community Rehabilitation: Live Well for Longer report and are calling for improved community rehabilitation for everyone who needs it. I was therefore very pleased that the Minister spoke of the Government’s commitment to treat people in the right place at the right time, with investment being made in integrated care locally. This is essential to improve rehabilitation for both physical and mental health long-term conditions and to avoid unnecessary admissions.

One area of the NHS funding settlement that has been widely welcomed is the commitment to increase overall spending on mental health by at least £2.3 billion by 2023-24. I will focus my remarks on this area. This is backed up by a commitment that every local clinical commissioning group will increase the amount it spends on mental health every year. As a psychiatrist, of course I welcome this increase in spending on mental health. However, as a specialist in learning disability, I am concerned that there seems to be no similar commitment to increase funding for helping this group of patients or for research in this area.

The Government announced that they spent £12.5 billion on combined mental health, dementia and learning disability services in England in 2018-19. However, the commitment to increase year-on-year spend seems to apply only to mental health. Could the Minister clarify this? In fact, it is impossible to know how much local areas are spending on dementia and learning disability because they publish only combined figures. I would welcome some guidance on the action being taken to ensure investment in learning disability and dementia. We cannot see the breakdown, but we know that NHS England has access to more detailed figures. Every CCG is audited by NHS England to make sure it has met the mental health investment standard—the rule that says that each CCG must increase how much it spends on mental health every year. Here is the conundrum.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists provided a helpful briefing for this Second Reading and highlighted that all 195 CCGs were confirmed as having met the mental health investment standard. That sounds really good, but is it not then rather confusing to learn that, last year, 32 CCGs—16.4% of the total number—reported that they had reduced how much they spent on combined mental health, learning disability and dementia services? I emphasise that every one was told that it had met the mental health investment standard. It appears that they must have achieved this by significantly cutting how much they spent on learning disability and dementia. Could the Minister confirm whether this is the case, or whether there is any other reason for a cut in overall spending?

The long-term plan commits the NHS to increasing investment in intensive, crisis and forensic community support for people with a learning disability and to take action to tackle the causes of morbidity and preventable deaths in people with a learning disability and autistic people. I declare my chairmanship of the oversight panel to review the care of people in this group, who are being detained in segregation under the Mental Health Act, often because of a lack of integrated community services.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists has called on the Government to require every CCG to publish a detailed breakdown of how much it spends on each of mental health, learning disability and dementia services so that the public can have a better understanding of what is happening. Will the Minister agree to look into to this? I particularly appreciated the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, about the number of psychology graduates and simply comment that much more could and must be done to enable these graduates to get the further training they need to be able to work in healthcare.

17:25

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood—the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell—and the honourable Edward Argar for the helpful meeting we had just before Recess to discuss the Bill. I also extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, for her services as Health Minister to this House. She will be sorely missed. I congratulate the noble Lord on continuing in this role.

I echo the thanks that other noble Lords have expressed to all the organisations which have sent us excellent briefings. Given that this is a Bill of one and a half pages, we have received probably a few telephone directories’—if they still existed—worth of briefings. It has been fascinating to hear the debate in your Lordships’ House today and to hear the same themes again and again from all sides of the House.

The Liberal Democrats will not oppose the Bill, although, we believe that, along with many others, it is not the panacea to health and social care that both the Prime Minister and Matt Hancock have been leading people to believe. I point out that the Bill does not seem to take account of any Barnett consequentials or social inequality issues, as has been raised by noble Lords. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that if there is extra funding for England, that should also be reflected in the devolved countries. There really needs to be a redistribution in terms of need as well. We absolutely understand that that has gone badly wrong in recent years.

Other noble Lords have already given a great deal of evidence on the current financial crises faced by different parts of the NHS, but it is worth briefly reiterating some of the headlines. We have heard that the revenue will increase from £120 billion in this financial year to £127 billion for the year we are about to start, and then increase further to £148.5 billion in 2023-24. Last year, NHS England’s long-term plan set out how it will deliver services over the next decade. I think I probably was not alone, when I read that plan last year, in thinking, “My goodness, they certainly know to squeeze every last penny out of the NHS to try to deliver those services.” We see what is happening at the moment with the pressures on the NHS. It is struggling—for the very good reason that this funding is not enough.

Others have argued that there is no need for this Bill at all as there is no need to enshrine NHS funding in law as an item separate from the Budget. That Theresa May and then Boris Johnson have felt that this was necessary speaks more, frankly, about the lack of public trust in the Government to deliver what many people believe that the NHS needs to survive. It is their beloved NHS and they want it to survive.

As others have said, the elephant in the room in this Bill is the lack of any clarity about the funding of social care. Most experts and non-experts alike recognise that some of the most severe pressures on the NHS are because of the total crisis in social care funding, brought about by severe, sustained and repeated cuts in the revenue grants to local authorities.

The Bill provides an average increase of only 3.4% year -on-year in funding. As other noble Lords have mentioned, the King’s Fund and many others who have written to noble Lords have said that the NHS needs a minimum of 4% per annum to restore the NHS key performance measures and to start to take account of demographic change, which will impact more on the health service and social care than perhaps any other part of public spending.

It was interesting listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and I will gently chide her, as she has chided her own side, by reminding her about it being the largest cash settlement in the NHS’s history. Full Fact, an independent organisation, found that, while that is correct in cash terms, after inflation the rise is £20.5 billion, which was exceeded by a £24 billion real-terms increase between 2004-05 and 2009-10. Therefore, the comments from the Labour Benches today are absolutely on the money—it is about the money. If people believe that is more money but then discover that there is not, they will become very angry very quickly.

Therefore, the question for the Government is: will the increase in funding that they are putting into law bring about the changes that our NHS and social care system needs? I use that phrase repeatedly because the department decided to extend its name to the Department of Health and Social Care—despite the fact that the crisis in social care is because all the funding is in a different department and is not only not accessible but regarded in a completely different way.

A&E waiting times continue to increase. We have already heard that achievement of the four-hour standard target dropped to below 80% for the first time since the target was introduced. Is that what is behind the Government’s discussions about abandoning some of the health targets? We explored that in the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, a couple of weeks ago. I remain concerned that losing some of those targets and identifying new things that are not targets but something else will change the focus of work. There is a place for performance targets in the public sector. They should not change things for the bad, and I believe that they have changed them for the good. If these and other targets are being missed, that demonstrates that there is a problem in the NHS, not a problem with the targets.

Workforce problems persist across the NHS, with one in 11 vacancies being unfilled. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, reminded us of the health implications of social inequalities, especially poverty. At Second Reading in another place, the Secretary of State talked about the priorities for the new funding: more GP appointments; new cancer screening and faster diagnosis; prevention, detection and treatment of cardiovascular disease; and investment in innovative technologies, such as genomics and artificial intelligence. Many noble Lords who have spoken today have touched on most of those points. However, if something is not a priority and the money provided for it is not sufficient, we have to worry. The priorities say nothing about mental health, social care or public health.

In recent days, we have heard from a number of organisations that have pointed to the problems with each of the privileged priority areas marked for special treatment, so even they think that what is being provided is not enough. We have heard from noble Lords that in order to deliver more GP appointments, we need more GPs. However, it takes time to train them and at the moment the problem is that they cannot be recruited. They are training as doctors then going elsewhere. It is almost like the discussions that we had four or five years ago about the reasons people could not be attracted into A&E work in hospitals. It was because it was perceived to be a difficult place to work, and primary care is now facing that too. We also need better clinical support services, including community nurses, especially on overnight shifts—a point that I will come back to in a moment—to support GP services.

Noble Lords have discussed the fundamental problem of recruitment and retention of doctors, including GPs, especially with the history of funding hospitals and secondary care over and above primary care. We all know that this will take a decade to resolve. However, it has been made significantly worse because EU and other national doctors are leaving primary care due to the hostile environment. They feel that they are no longer welcome to work in the United Kingdom. Salary bands alone will not make the UK an attractive place to work, so this Government will have to do considerably more to encourage recruitment from abroad. We will need that if we are to at least temporarily stop the problems that we have at the moment.

On cancer services, Cancer Research UK has pointed out that

“no allowances are made within this for the growing cost of staff required to run the NHS.”

How do we think cancer services are going to be run? It says:

“This is a significant oversight, and as pressure piles up on existing overworked NHS staff, patients are being let down.”


Much of what it says is echoed by those who work in cardiovascular services, and we should also be clear about what is needed to help social care survive. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his comments on that, and I am particularly grateful for the briefing from the MS Society. It reminds us that local authority funding has not kept pace with demographic pressures. For adult social care it is not just a not-inflation cost; it is cutting services off at the knees. Although the additional £1.5 billion promised at the recent spending round for 2021 is useful, experts believe that that is the minimum needed to keep the social care system going.

Looking ahead, there is a large funding gap to improve the system on a sustainable basis. Last year, as has been mentioned, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee estimated that improving care quality and addressing unmet need alone would require £8.1 billion in 2021. There is a big difference between £1.5 billion and just over £8 billion. The MS Society puts it in very human terms: one in three people living with multiple sclerosis is not getting the support they need to complete essential daily activities such as washing, dressing, eating or moving around the house safely.

It is worth remembering that the NHS Long Term Plan clearly states:

“Both the wellbeing of older people and pressures on the NHS are also linked to how well social care is functioning. When agreeing the NHS’ funding settlement the government therefore committed to ensure that adult social care funding is such that it does not impose any additional pressure on the NHS over the coming five years.”


Does the Minister believe that the amount allocated to adult social care is sufficient to avoid a negative impact on NHS constitutional standards? Does he believe that the amount allocated to adult social care is sufficient for local authorities to meet their duties as set out in the Care Act 2014? Given that we are told that the Treasury has asked all departments to prepare for 5% cuts, can the Minister confirm that the local authority grant for the next four years will have not only zero cuts but large and sustained growth for social care, public health and other parts of local authority budgets that impact on the health of the nation?

Investments in genomics and artificial intelligence—and other research, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Willis—are important because we must constantly improve our health system and use technology and research to maintain much of our leading edge, not just in research but in treatment techniques.

It is disappointing not to see mental health services as a priority. How the Government can talk about parity of esteem without funding it seems somewhat astonishing. Sir Norman Lamb and the Liberal Democrats in coalition persuaded the Conservatives that we should talk about parity of esteem for mental health. Will the Minister tell us what that equates to in money terms? I will not repeat the arguments made by many noble Lords during this debate about the problems with CCGs cooking the books. There is no other phrase for it: they cook the books. If they can get a tick for delivering on mental health, and yet we know that the money is being diverted, that is a lacuna in the system and it needs to be plugged swiftly. What extra funding will the Government provide for mental health services and how will they insist that CCGs deliver it and are accountable, not just in some annual report but as the year progresses, to make sure that it is spent on mental health services?

I turn to another area that CCGs have been working on: services for children with serious medical conditions. CCGs have cut the support and care required for these children over the last two years to the point at which there are virtually no medical respite care centres left for children on ventilators who require PEGs for feeding. Actually, they have also cut community nursing services at weekends and overnight. It does not affect just children; they also serve people with cancer and other illnesses. If you have a feeding tube that comes out in the night, the only thing you can do is go to A&E. That is ridiculous. Sending someone to A&E, particularly if they are in a home, costs far more than having a regular night-service system of community health services; but CCGs can do it, so they do.

I have a long list—but I will not go through it because time will not let me—of the other services that need to be considered. I have made the point about children; others are musculoskeletal services, occupational therapy and physiotherapy. They are all struggling because they are not seen as a priority.

I began by talking about the lack of trust in the Government to fund the NHS at a level that would deliver real and sustained growth in services. On the Lib Dem Benches in both Houses, we will hold the Government to two comments made by Matt Hancock at Second Reading. First, he said:

“The legislation explicitly states that the Bill establishes a floor, not a ceiling, for how much we spend on … the day-to-day running costs of the NHS.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/20; col. 564.]


Later he said:

“I can guarantee that the mental health funding will be ring-fenced.”—[Official Report, Commons 27/1/20; col. 568.]


We stand at a crossroads in NHS funding. The Bill starts to make provision for increased funding but is by no means enough to provide the growth needed to bring services back to previous levels; nor does it take account of demographic change. All of this is without any of the other pressures that noble Lords have described—what happens if we have a further coronavirus problem?—and obviously the Bill does not tackle the issues in social care, public health and other key services. If these are not funded urgently and properly, the Bill will be nothing more than a temporary sticking plaster on an arterial bleed. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

17:40

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by reporting to the House again that I am a lay member of my local CCG, as in the register of interests. I also put on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, for her time as a Minister and for the briefing that she gave us before the break.

It is my job to wind up this debate from these Benches, and I appreciate that it is the job of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to do so as the Government’s spokesperson. However, I have to say that as far as we can tell there has never been a major health Bill Second Reading in your Lordships’ House that was not answered by a Health Minister. We all know how competent the noble Lord is—

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that my noble friend answers for Her Majesty’s Government and is a Minister of the Crown?

[Baroness Thornton]

I would just note that the noble Earl, who is an expert in procedure, was not actually in the debate that we have just had. We all know how competent the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is at the Dispatch Box, but the Government put health at the centre of their programme. I think that it is not respectful to this House not to have a Health Minister in their place, and I look forward to there being one. If that is the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that would be brilliant for him—I just want to put that on the record.

We have had some excellent contributions today. We are quite correct to use this opportunity to hold the Government to account, even if we cannot amend the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we have had many briefings asking us to pose questions during this debate, many of which have been reflected in the contributions that we have heard.

This is a short Bill, but I have to say that, even by the standards of some of the very daft legislation that we have seen from the Conservatives over the past few years, the NHS Funding Bill, all stages of which will be debated on your Lordships’ House today, is rather strange. We know that Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, struggles to trust himself to carry out the things that he promised before and during the general election. In this case, it is the promise to increase NHS funding by £33 billion before the end of 2023-24—a promise that of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said, was made in 2018 by his predecessor. To ensure that the Prime Minister meets his commitment, we have what my honourable friend Jonathan Ashworth has already said in the other place is a political gimmick: he has decided to put it on the statute book. Frankly, given Mr Johnson’s ongoing proximity to obeying the law and to the truth, that is probably no guarantee of anything at all.

In addition, with the proposed legislation designated as a money Bill, Peers will be unable to send any amendments back to the House of Commons for consideration. That is frustrating as the Bill, originally announced by Theresa May back in June 2018, contains, as many noble Lords have said, many serious problems and flaws. We agree with the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation that an increase of at least 4% is required to modernise and improve standards in the NHS, and that the 3.4% that this funding proposal brings might just about keep the show on the road. Indeed, as many other noble Lords have said, given that inflation is set to be higher than initially anticipated, the increase will be of even less value.

The Government’s proposals, as noble Lords have said, omit some very important factors. The Bill does not apply to the whole of the healthcare budget, and the exceptions mean it will not deliver, I believe, the transformation that the Government—and, indeed, all of us—desire. If the new funding is not accompanied by equivalent and sustainable investment in public health—we have had a discussion this afternoon that they do not even know what their budget is for the coming year in public health, which really makes their life impossible—social care and capital investment, the strains on the NHS will increase, storing up further problems for the future. Indeed, as many other noble Lords have said, the Bill does not address workforce, education and training.

Several noble Lords outlined the challenges that the NHS faces right now, so I will not repeat the issues about waiting times and trolley waits increasing, the 4.42 million people waiting for elective treatment and the delays of hospitalisation, often due to the lack of social care provision. Indeed, after this debate we will be discussing how we can deal with what might become a pandemic. We hope that it will not, but it adds to the serious challenges facing the NHS.

The British Medical Association is calling for a comprehensive spending plan that increases total health spending by at least 4.1% per year in real terms to address the gap between the funding of current services and future demand, and to put the NHS on a sustainable long-term footing. This equates to an extra £9.5 billion a year by 2023-24. What is the Minister’s view on that? I think the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, together hit the nail on the head about social care, so I do not think I can add to that, except to echo that it has to be properly funded, otherwise this funding will not work. The strain on the NHS from the inadequacies of our social care system will ensure that it will not work. That, to me, seems to be a matter of the greatest urgency.

I am looking at capital investment. The NAO has reported that £4.3 billion was transferred from the capital budget to the revenue budget in the NHS between 2014-15 and 2018-19. The impact of these transfers can now be seen in an estimated backlog of maintenance of £6.5 billion. This affects patient care and safety: it means that there is water running down walls, so the wards cannot be used; it is a disruption of clinical services; and it means that the kit that people are using is outdated and, therefore, they have to be referred on because the X-rays and the MRI scans are not adequate. The Government’s stated aim of delivering the long-term plan will not be achievable without urgent and sustained investment in these areas through another multiyear settlement.

The Bill does not address staffing, as many other noble Lords have said. There are now over 106,000 vacancies across the NHS in England and no allowance seems to have been made for the growing cost of recruitment and retention of staff at every level, so the NHS people plan needs to be published urgently so that we can see how the Government intend to deliver on their commitment to support with the additional resources. As other noble Lords have said, Macmillan Cancer Support and Cancer Research UK say that adding 50,000 general nurses will not solve the crisis in the cancer workforce. Cancer Research UK says that the increase completely fails to address the significant and growing problem there is in the diagnostic workforce.

I turn to mental health. My noble friend Lord Bradley explained the urgent priorities there, particularly in children’s mental health services. As other noble Lords have said, mental illness represents up to 23% of the total burden of ill health in the UK but only 11% of the NHS budgets. So the Government will ensure the delivery of effective spending on mental health only if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we have detailed breakdowns for each CCG, including separate figures for mental health investment and assessment, spending on learning disability and spending on dementia services.

In conclusion, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt about short-termism. Would the Minister care to look at the report from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and its recommendations and proposals about short-termism and take them into account when discussing how to proceed with the long-term plan?

This week, we saw the launch of the Marmot 10-year review of health inequalities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, it makes very dismal and serious reading. It also shows the context in which our NHS is struggling to meet the appalling health inequalities facing the UK. As noble Lords have said, for the first decade in 100 years, life expectancy has failed to increase. As Sir Michael Marmot says:

“Put simply, if health has stopped improving it is a sign that society has stopped improving.”


The report points a finger at the all-too-familiar social and economic conditions that have increased health inequalities, which are now quite literally a matter of life and death. The NHS Funding Bill therefore should feed into a more general discussion about creating a fairer society and improving people’s well-being—and, by doing so, should help to improve the health of the whole population.

17:50

[Lord Bethell]

My Lords, I join those who have paid tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Blackwood, my predecessor at the Dispatch Box, who made an invaluable contribution to the Department of Health and Social Care and is very sorely missed. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for offering to join my campaign team. It is an offer that I am very happy to accept.

I was warned by the Chief Whip not to say that this was a vintage House of Lords debate and the House of Lords at its best, because it is hackneyed—but it is true. This has been a terrific debate, very highly informed and very challenging. There have been an enormous number of challenges in this debate—far too many for me to get through all of them—but I will try my best. Forgive me if I rattle through things a little.

I reassure the House that the NHS is the top priority of the British people, as a number of noble Lords have rightly pointed out, and of this Government. I know that there may be cynicism about the long-term plan that is being discussed today and about the Bill. The numbers that have been put forward in the Bill came from the NHS itself. The Bill enshrines those numbers in law. It is not a gimmick, and it is not Swiss cheese, as one noble Lord put it.

[Lord Warner]

I think most of us thought that these numbers came from NHS England, not the wider NHS. Can the Minister clarify that?

[Lord Bethell]

I am happy to accept that clarification. The noble Lord is exactly right: the numbers are from NHS England and they apply in that way.

To go back to Swiss cheese, the Bill is an ironclad guarantee to protect NHS funding. We are giving the NHS the certainty it needs to invest now for the long term. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who put his finger on it. He spoke about the culture of short-termism and rightly mentioned—as did other noble Lords—the excellent report of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on long-term sustainability. The natural human instinct to mitigate and to hedge when finances and money are uncertain has been remarked on in this debate. It is an entirely human instinct. The Government want to remove that uncertainty and to send a really clear signal to the system. We want to remove any sense of political risk about finance, so that decision-makers in the health system can make the best possible plans without looking over their shoulders to the finance director. They can instead be brave and make the best decisions possible and, in that way, implement the long-term plan in the most efficient way possible.

Where I have a difference of opinion with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is in his scepticism that reducing demand for hospital care is not possible. This Government believe that prevention is better than cure. That is why we are placing huge emphasis on community services, primary care and supporting people to live in the community, which reduces the number of people looking for acute care. We are investing in GPs and in urgent care centres to ensure that people are treated in the right place and at the right time.

I will talk first about the Bill in its essence. A number of Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have remarked that it is not enough money. I remind noble Lords that the plan comes from NHS England and that the Bill does not limit the amount of funding that we put into the NHS. Instead, it sets out a budget that must be at least what we have committed to. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that this is not a cap. That is laid out clearly in Clause 1, which states:

“In making an allotment to the health service in England for each financial year specified in the table, the Secretary of State must allot an amount that is at least the amount specified in relation to that financial year.”


I will now tackle a few points of detail. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about transfers from capital to revenue. We have said that such transfers were a short-term measure and are being phased out. Furthermore, the Treasury operates strict conditions on transferring between capital and revenue budgets. This is not a blanket ban. Sometimes technical adjustments between capital and revenue are needed for operational reasons, but these are a temporary measure.

The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Warner, asked about trust debt. We totally recognise that the stock of debt has grown and in recent years has become a significant financial challenge. We are working with NHS England and NHS Improvement to agree a framework of bringing provider debt down to an affordable level. We look to establish a new financing framework for 2020-21 that complements the NHS long-term plan.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was 100% right to raise the challenge of health inequality. We were all chastened by the Marmot review, which told uncomfortable truths. We completely accept the right to a long life. This Government are not ducking the challenge of health inequality. In fact, when we talk about levelling up, what could be a more vivid and valued form of levelling up than health equality? That is why we have put so much emphasis on laying down concrete commitments to these financial numbers and laying out, to the best of our ability, a long-term plan for the NHS.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked a marathon six questions, which I will not be able to answer in their entirety. I will just tackle the question of cash not being index-linked and numbered. The NHS budget, like many other departmental settlements, is always set out in cash terms. This is essentially to deliver certainty. Experience has taught us that every time inflation goes up or down, budgets need to be reopened and confusion reigns. Furthermore, we as a House should remember that we are proposing a floor, not a ceiling; this is the kind of clear reassurance that has been asked for by the system.

I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that additional spending on the NHS in England absolutely leads to an increase in funding for the devolved Administrations through the Barnett formula—£7 billion for the Scottish Government from 2019-20 to 2023-24; £4 billion for the Welsh Government; and £2.3 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive. We will undertake a spending review later this year and will publish multiyear Barnett-based block grants for the devolved Administrations shortly afterwards.

Many noble Lords asked about the capital budget and quite reasonably asked why the Bill is about only revenue, not capital. The Bill is very much about protecting the record revenue spending for NHS England. However, we all know and totally acknowledge the requirement for capital investment. The Government have already made significant commitments: 40 new hospitals, with £2.7 billion for the first six; a further £2 billion capital spending, including £850 million for the first 20 hospital upgrades; and so on. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and others, that further decisions about NHS capital will be made at a fiscal event in the very near future.

I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about the mental health estate and the use of wards. I reassure the House, and the noble Baroness in particular, that her arguments have been heard loud and clear. The Government recognise that the mental health estate is not satisfactory and are looking at ways to modernise these out-of-date buildings and arrangements.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, made a plea for GP surgeries. This resonates with me personally. The patient experience of arriving at a GP surgery is essential. Time and again, from my own experience, from what I know of human nature and from what I hear from patients, it is an unhappy one. In particular, the role of the receptionist at the GP surgery is unfortunate. I feel enormously for front-line professionals who have to deal with triage and the awkward conversations that take place. Something must be done to rethink the way we present ourselves to patients and that initial interface through the receptionist: a patient-first modernisation will be important.

[Lord Bradley]

Going back to the Minister’s comment about further capital announcements at an event in the very near future, will that allow the department to release the cash for the seventh hospital, North Manchester General?

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Lord asks a very good question. The answer is not in my mega briefing pack, but I will be very glad to get back to him if I find an answer.

The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Warner, asked, quite rightly, about maintenance, which is brought up during every hospital visit I make. We recognise the challenge that maintenance presents to the existing estate and the Government have recognised the need for further capital investment in the NHS by announcing, over the summer of 2019, a £1.8 billion increase in NHS capital spending, including £850 million for 20 more hospital upgrades. We know that more capital funding will be needed and this will be dealt with in the near future.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, asked about capital for North Manchester General Hospital and the prospects for a green light for the project. As part of our health infrastructure plan, 21 new-build projects across 34 hospitals are receiving £100 million seed funding to help plan their schemes and move on to the next stage. I am delighted that Manchester NHS will benefit from £4.6 million seed funding to help plan and redevelop North Manchester General Hospital.

I move from the Bill to the central thrust of the debate, which was not about the Bill itself, but about what was not in it. I start with mental health, because Peer after Peer addressed this subject. I reassure the House that spending on mental health in the NHS long-term plan is an absolutely massive priority for the Government. This historic level of investment—£2.3 billion by 2023-24—will ensure that this Government can drive forward one of the most ambitious mental health reform programmes anywhere in Europe. It will ensure that 380,000 more people per year will have access to psychological therapies; that 370,000 adults and older adults with severe mental illness can access better support; and that 345,000 children and young people will be able to access services.

I cannot say exactly how many of the nurses that we will recruit will be mental health nurses. That data is not available, but I can say that we are transforming community-based mental health support so that more people can be treated closer to home. We are ensuring that the NHS is delivering the commitment to increasing investment in mental health provision. As a result, we have required all clinical commissioning groups to meet the mental health investment standard. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, had some detailed and significant questions about how the mental health investment standard was being applied. Rather than try to give a half answer now, I suggest that we meet to discuss her data in detail. I should be glad to understand more about her concerns.

[Baroness Hollins]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. He mentioned increased access to mental health services for many more people but, in my experience, people with learning disabilities and autism are often left out of those services and seen as requiring something different, whereas they need to be included in all services. Can he confirm and reassure me that that is the case in, for example, psychological therapies?

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Baroness makes an important point and her work in this area is well known. It would be, however, slightly outside the remit of the Bill to go into that in great detail. I do not have the answer she is looking for but should be glad to meet her to discuss this important matter. I share her concerns and my interests in the area are entirely aligned with hers.

My noble friend Lady Penn put us all on the rack regarding the mental health White Paper. I would very much like to give her the absolute date and concrete publication arrangements for it but that is slightly beyond me. However, I reassure her that it will be within the next few months; spring is the hoped-for arrival time.

[Baroness Penn]

Can the Minister define when spring ends and summer begins?

[Lord Bethell]

My noble friend asks a question of such philosophical Whitehall subtlety that it is way beyond my pay grade to provide a clear, etymological answer to that. However, I reassure her that the matter is an enormous priority, and when I go back to the department I will lean on it hard to deliver this important publication.

The commentaries of my noble friend Lady Penn and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on the visibility of spending on children’s mental health was important. The Government are 100% aligned on this. I noted the Minister of State from another place standing at the Bar, nodding with agreement while those words were being said. I know that a meeting has been agreed on this matter and a date is in the diary, I believe for next week, and I very much look forward to the outcome. I reassure the House that this question of visibility and publication is taken ex3tremely seriously.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked about the mental health investment standard. CCGs are required to increase investment in mental health, as discussed earlier. All CCGs are on track to meet that standard, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, rightly pointed out in 2019-20. I suggested in my previous speech that it would be premature to legislate for specific aspects in the Bill and capital will be considered in other fiscal events.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, spoke movingly about children’s mental health. I reassure the House that, in addition to increased mental health funding, we are implementing a progressive programme of transformational change for children and young people’s mental health services. This will include incentivising every school or college to identify and train a senior lead for mental health, creating new school and college-based mental health support teams, and piloting a four-week waiting time for children and young people’s specialised services.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others brought up the sensitive subject of adult social care. Fixing that long-term issue is one of the great challenges that this Government have taken to their shoulders. The reassurance I can give noble Lords is a political one. There are many complex questions to address, but our pledge as a Government has been clear: everybody will have safety and security, and nobody will be forced to sell their home to pay for care. Delivering on this promise will require an enormous amount of stakeholder engagement and political bridge-building, and we are embarking on that important process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was quite right to say that social care workers are wrongly described as low skilled. I entirely agree with her sentiments; they are low paid but highly valued.

I am running out of time and have a few more points to make. I will jump to the conclusion and say that the Government take this Bill very seriously. The execution of the money involved in the Bill is also taken very seriously. There have been a number of exciting, important ideas about how that money should be spent from the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Kakkar, among others.

We made our commitment in the manifesto and the Queen’s Speech to enshrine record NHS funding in law. We are delivering on that commitment and putting the NHS on a secure and stable footing for the future. The NHS belongs to us all, and this Government are backing that idea. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Lord Warner]

Before the Minister sits down, I have a question. I have been digesting his answer to me on inflation-proofing. Is he saying one way or the other whether these figures will be inflation-proofed annually, with the passage of time? Two-thirds of NHS costs are pay, and there will presumably be some pay increases. What is the Government’s position on inflation-proofing these figures?

[Lord Bethell]

It is the convention in the Treasury to express spending commitments in cash terms. That is the convention of government and how this Bill is expressed. It is not the commitment of government to uprate these figures necessarily according to inflation. They are adjusted for all the potential inflation that may happen. That said, if unexpected events happen or pressures are great, there is the opening and the capacity to increase spending if necessary.

Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time, and passed.

Wuhan Coronavirus

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:13

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made today by my right honourable friend Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to update the House on the Covid-19 coronavirus. As of this morning, 7,132 people in the UK have been tested for the virus. So far, 13 people in the UK have tested positive, of whom eight are now discharged from hospital. We expect more cases here.

As planned, 115 people left supported isolation at Kents Hill Park in Milton Keynes on 23 February. All tested negative for Covid-19. On Saturday, 32 people from the ‘Diamond Princess’ cruise ship were repatriated and taken to Arrowe Park, where they will remain in supported isolation. Four of those have tested positive and been transferred to specialist centres. British tourists are currently being quarantined in a hotel in Tenerife and the Foreign Office is in contact with them.

We have a clear, four-part plan to respond to the outbreak of this disease: contain, delay, research and mitigate. We are taking all necessary measures to minimise the risk to the public. We have put in place enhanced monitoring measures at UK airports and health information is available at all international airports, ports and international train stations. We have established a supported isolation facility at Heathrow to cater for international passengers who are tested, and to maximise infection control and free up NHS resources. The NHS is testing a very large number of people who have travelled back from affected countries, the vast majority of whom test negative.

In the past few days, we have published guidance for schools, employers, first responders, social care and the travel industry on how to handle suspected cases. If anyone has been in contact with a suspected case in a childcare or educational setting, no special measures are required while test results are awaited. There is no need to close the school or send other students or staff home. Once the results arrive, those who test negative will be advised individually about returning to education. In most cases, closure of the childcare or education setting will be unnecessary, but this will be a local decision based on various factors, including professional advice. Schools should be guided by the advice on GOV.UK and contact their regional school commissioner in case of queries.

In the coming days, we will roll out a wider public information campaign. While the Government and the NHS have plans in place for all eventualities, everyone can play their part. To reiterate, our advice is for everyone to take sensible precautions such as using tissues and washing their hands more.

Yesterday, we updated our advice to returning travellers from northern Italy, defined as anywhere north of, but not including, Pisa and Florence, as well as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar. Those returning from Iran, the lockdown areas in northern Italy and special care zones in South Korea should self-isolate and call NHS 111, even if they have no symptoms.

We are working closely with the World Health Organization, the G7 and the wider international community to ensure that we are ready for all eventualities. We are co-ordinating research efforts with international partners. Our approach has at all times been guided by the Chief Medical Officer, working on the basis of the best possible scientific advice. The public can be assured that we have a clear plan to contain, delay, research and mitigate and that we are working methodically through each step to keep the public safe. I commend this Statement to the House.”

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

18:18

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. The challenge the Government face—as we all do—is that this is a very fast-moving situation. If noble Lords look at their BBC newsfeed, they will find that coronavirus is now spreading faster outside China, according to the World Health Organization—that was reported literally 15 or 20 minutes ago. Our thoughts are with those who have been diagnosed with the virus in the UK, across Europe and elsewhere, and those in quarantine. I place on record our thanks to the NHS and public health service staff.

I understand the approach the that the Government have taken to the quarantine arrangements. There has been a significant spread of the virus across the continent, including cases in Austria, Croatia and Switzerland. As the noble Lord said, a hotel in Tenerife is in lockdown after a guest tested positive. What support is being offered to British nationals in this hotel? Will flights from northern Italy be stopped? Will there be any additional screening of flights from other European cities with confirmed outbreaks? Can the Minister clarify the travel advice for passengers to and from these areas? I know of several people who intended to fly to Italy and have now cancelled their flights.

Several schools in England and Northern Ireland seem to have shut down completely for a week to carry out a “deep clean” after students and teachers returned from skiing trips in northern Italy over the half term. The Minister has given us some information about the advice to schools. How will it be enforced, or are we leaving it to local organisations, councils and school and academy boards to take those decisions?

I am sure that noble Lords will already have noticed that the oil company, Chevron, has asked 300 traders at its Canary Wharf headquarters to stay at home after an unwell employee was tested for the virus, having reported flu-like symptoms. They are awaiting results.

I want to ask a question about capacity. We have just had a debate in which many noble Lords talked about that issue. According to the NHS’s weekly winter statistics, bed occupancy in England is at 94.8%—way above the target considered to be safe. If this virus was to spread rapidly in the UK, how would the Government free up bed space in hospitals, which are currently mostly full?

Public Health England has announced today that tests for the virus are being increased, to include people displaying flu-like symptoms, at 11 hospitals and 100 GP surgeries across the UK. Up to now, people were tested only if they displayed symptoms having recently returned from one of the countries where there has been an outbreak, including China, South Korea and northern Italy. This action seems contrary to previous advice given to patients, which was not to go to GPs or A&Es but to self-isolate. I would like some further clarity on that issue.

On behalf of the Official Opposition, we thank all our NHS staff. We also thank the Government and hope that they will continue to keep us fully informed, as they have done hitherto.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

From the Liberal Democrat Benches, I start by echoing the Labour Party’s thanks to the NHS, staff at the Department of Health and Social Care and other public bodies, and all the staff, clinical and non-clinical, working around the clock both in the UK and abroad in the FCO in countries where there are cases and UK citizens. I think that we all accept that this is a major continuing crisis. It is one thing for something to happen for two or three weeks, but we are now two months into this, and it is clearly continuing to increase.

I emailed the noble Lord, Lord Bethel, with some questions on the basis that we were all working here for some hours immediately before the Statement, and I hope that advance notice of them was helpful. Dr David Nabarro from the World Health Organization spoke on the “Today” programme this morning about the WHO’s overnight warning that the world must prepare for a potential coronavirus pandemic and that the WHO is beginning to be concerned that the outbreak could be “Disease X”, for which they have been preparing for many years. I also thank the World Health Organization and its staff, who are doing a brilliant job that is invisible to most countries—I shall return to that in one of my questions.

In previous Statements on coronavirus, I have asked other Ministers to explain why UK health advice always seems to be one step behind that of a couple of other countries—I refer specifically to CDC. I will give a personal illustration. I am due to go to Naples at the tail end of next week. I suffer from a long-term condition for which I take medication that suppresses my immune system. As a result, I come into that category of vulnerable people who need to think carefully, yet when I look at the World Health Organization website, the government website and the NHS website, I can find very little of clarity about what I should do as somebody in that condition. However, the CDC website is very clear.

So I ask again, as I have done repeatedly: what advice are the Government and the NHS giving to people regarded as being in a vulnerable position? My previous comment was about people so described who might live in and around Brighton when the cases surfaced there—what should they do and where would they get their advice from? Perhaps I am “asking for a friend”, but what is the position for people going to a country defined by the CDC at alert level 2? I think the UK is at that level, but we do not call it that. The CDC’s advice, in its key points box at the top, is very clear:

“Older adults and those with chronic medical conditions should consider postponing non-essential travel.”


I have seen it, and that is fine. I am sure that other professional travellers will be looking at it, but many people planning holidays will not know where to turn. They would normally go to the FCO website or the NHS website, and it is just not clear on those. In the Statement, the Minister referred to a public communications plan. Are there plans to set out exactly what people need to do? Will part of this communications plan be to make clearer, as the CDC website does, all the different stages and what ordinary people need to do to think about things?

Picking up the point about the Tenerife hotel, have lessons been learned from the cruise ship in Japan about keeping a lot of people in close quarters? Can we be reassured that UK and other citizens who are going to be in this hotel for two weeks will not end up in the same position as the many hundreds on the cruise ship who have now been diagnosed with coronavirus?

Talking of updates, Ireland has just postponed the Ireland v Italy Six Nations rugby match that was due to be played in Dublin, because of the coronavirus virus outbreak. So the Irish Government are already beginning to think that travel plans ought to be reconsidered.

My final question arose from noticing, when using the toilets in this place, that there are now very helpful posters reminding us about the 12 steps of hand washing. Suddenly, in the last two days, hand sanitisers have appeared. That is great; it is wonderful. But what will the Government’s advice be to the general public about personal hygiene such as hand washing and using alcohol hand sanitisers? The World Health Organization’s frequently asked questions and myth-busters pages are very good. I struggle to find anything as accessible in the UK. Most of the BBC report referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was taken from the WHO pages. So let us not reinvent the wheel but talk to people to ensure that they understand where we are.

I want to end on the same note as the noble Baroness. I thank the many hundreds, if not thousands, of people working to keep our country safe.

[Lord Bethell]

My Lords, I too express my profound thanks to NHS staff and the ancillary workers who support our clinical efforts: the bus drivers, the hotel staff and the deep-cleaning staff, who all have done so much already to help contain this virus in the UK. I especially thank the Chief Medical Officer, whose excellent advice has guided all our decision-making to date and will continue to be the most important guidance we can have.

There were two questions about the Tenerife hotel. I start by thanking the Spanish authorities. The practicalities are that the Foreign Office is in charge of handling arrangements for British citizens overseas, so questions about managing flights and cancelled services are questions for the Foreign Office. I understand that the Spanish authorities are flying specialist medical staff to Tenerife, because Tenerife has relatively limited health arrangements. A considerable effort is being made to ensure that all nationalities, including British holidaymakers who are in the hotel, have the best possible health provision.

On changing travel advice, we are going to be living through a period over the next few months when travel advice is fluid and changes on a week-by-week basis. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office issues travel advice—it is not for the Department of Health to do that—but my advice is to keep close to the advice. The travel advice of all countries will not always be aligned, but the World Health Organization has, to date, played an important, positive and constructive role in seeking to co-ordinate a response to the pandemic. We in Britain will move from a situation where containment is the priority to one where that is no longer practical, and the advice we give on travel will reflect that transition when it happens.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about the advice given to schools and, with characteristic thoughtfulness, she answered her own question. The current arrangement is that local schools, governors and authorities should make arrangements for themselves. As the epidemic progresses, that decision may need to be reviewed but, at present, it seems reasonable, proportionate and what parents want.

The noble Baroness also asked about capacity within the NHS, and it must be on everyone’s mind that the NHS does not have infinite capacity and it will not be possible to find a hospital bed for everyone affected by the virus. There will be considerable pressure put on the system, but I reassure the House that, over the years, considerable planning has already gone into making arrangements for this pressure and that the safety of the workforce and patients is paramount.

There are considerable measures that individuals can take to support themselves, and Ministers will be emphasising until they are blue in the face the importance of hand washing and self-isolation. These are important behavioural changes that we will seek to communicate to the British people over the next few weeks. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we are planning and developing a massive communications campaign on how to protect people, particularly vulnerable people, in our population. At present, we are ensuring that people know how to protect themselves, highlighting the importance of staying at home if you feel unwell, and of regular hand hygiene. The needs and special arrangements of those with immune issues, which the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, will also be an important part of that campaign, and plans are well developed for launching it shortly.

A question was asked on the arrangements for travellers to China and, if I understood the question correctly, there is a distinction between those who travel to high-risk areas and those who travel to risk areas. If you travel to a high-risk area such as Wuhan, or one of the sanctioned areas in north Italy, on your return you are asked to immediately self-isolate. However, if you travel to China or Italy more broadly, you are asked to self-isolate if you start to display symptoms of a virus. That is the distinction noble Lords can have in their minds, and which will be communicated to the public more widely.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked some detailed questions. I am grateful to her for forwarding them, and I will answer them in detail. She asked about the World Health Organization and its preparation for declaring a potential pandemic. The UK is prepared, and delivering plans for, a potential coronavirus pandemic. The plans are advanced and in place. Any new disease could be considered a “Disease X”. Current information and planning is based on what we call a “reasonable worst-case scenario”.

The noble Baroness asked about advice to travellers and rightly brought up the excellent CDC website. She mentioned CDC category 2 countries, particularly Iran and Italy, whose approaches seem to be different to that of the UK. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office already advises against all but essential travel to Iran. There are 10 small towns in Lombardy and one in Veneto which have been isolated by the Italian authorities. The health page on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice website has been updated with information on the coronavirus outbreak.

Lastly, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about advice to the general population on personal hygiene and noted, quite rightly, the spread of hand-washing advertising and sanitisers in this House. There is very comprehensive advice on this on the NHS website. It can be accessed directly from the NHS homepage by searching for “Covid-19”. There are also answers to common questions, such as: are face masks useful for preventing coronavirus?

We are also aware of the dangers of fake news and a team is working on combating the misleading and wrongful advice that might stem from that.

18:35

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I have half a lung following surgery for a tumour and COPD on the residual lobes. I am over 70 and therefore form part of the group of thousands—potentially hundreds of thousands—who are at particular risk from this virus. When the virus reaches London in conditions of a pandemic, and perhaps even before, I am likely to withdraw from the House for a period of time. For vulnerable groups, advice to wash hands, use tissues and self-isolate is totally and utterly inadequate. Those in vulnerable groups risk loss of life and are entitled to far more detailed information. With that in mind, will Ministers reply individually and in detail to each of the many questions that I, following consultation, shall be asking either in the House or by way of correspondence? There are a large number of questions that vulnerable groups will want answered. Could the answers be distributed more widely? Be of no doubt: in the absence of detailed advice, lives will be lost.

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, makes his point extremely well. I cannot believe that there is anyone in this House who does not have a relative, friend or loved one who is in the same situation. When we look closely at this virus, it causes enormous anxiety. It is part of the Government’s role to ensure not only that information is provided and distributed effectively and energetically, in the way he described, but that this is done in a reasonable, paced way that does not create panic and alarm. The Government lean towards early action on the virus, pre-empting issues and having the right information, data and measures in place. That has been the philosophy of our response from the very beginning. The communications that he described, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, are exactly the kind of materials that we are working on right now. They will be distributed with the energy and determination that he described.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, we know that there are adequate quarantine facilities in the Wirral and Milton Keynes, but can my noble friend assure the House that the Government have provisional plans in many other parts of the country, in case we have a repeat of having to fly back large numbers of people and put them together for a fortnight or thereabouts? There is real concern on this issue and I would be grateful for reassurance.

[Lord Bethell]

My noble friend is quite right that the quarantine arrangements at Arrowe Park have worked extremely well. This has meant that Britain has been one of the more advanced countries in handling this period of containment. I pay tribute to those involved at Arrowe Park and at Heathrow and Gatwick for handling those flights. It would be misleading of me to stand at the Dispatch Box and suggest that quarantine arrangements are going to be possible ad infinitum for everyone returning from an at-risk area. There will be a moment—as has already happened in Italy—where the containment of the virus in this country will no longer be possible and we will move on to a new phase. Quarantine has worked well so far but it is not, on its own, going to be the solution to this problem.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I add a note of congratulations to all the public health people, to Public Health England, Public Health Wales, staff across the UK and health board staff at every level. They have rapidly changed the way that they are working in order to undertake close planning. Can the Minister confirm that we are producing enough testing kits to be able to roll out more testing in the community across the whole of the UK? Has additional budget been put aside to ensure that health service personnel have all they need and to allow additional isolation facilities to be used, if necessary, for very sick patients who would be taken in isolation to NHS units?

[Lord Bethell]

I reassure the House that there is an enormously energetic effort being put into testing kits. The testing arrangements to date have worked well. There is a 24 to 48-hour turnaround for testing. Work is being put into a dramatic increase in the number of tests necessary. Energetic work is being conducted by commercial organisations into smaller, portable testing kits—the size of this Dispatch Box—that could be put in wards to have an immediate turnaround for testing. This will greatly facilitate the management of this epidemic. I salute those involved in the 24/7 race to produce new technology and large numbers of these testing kits. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I have warm words for Public Health England, which has done a fantastic job. I cannot remember the third thing that she asked.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I beg the House’s indulgence because I know the convention is that a Back-Bencher should ask a quick question and sit down but in this case I cannot do that.

I have absolute confidence in our ability to try to contain this virus but, having said that, it will depend on how the virus behaves. As yet, we do not know its behaviour. Most of the cases hitherto reported are from areas where there have already been cases and are not new cases. A pandemic has not been declared yet but we may be at the knife edge. If it is declared, the advice will change, as will the way of screening people.

In this situation, containment is the first phase of stopping the virus spreading. It is like a fire, which can last only as long as there is kindling available. It will infect as many people as it possibly can. Possibly four out of five people in our country will be infected and maybe 2% will die. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is right. The Government need to provide clear guidance for those who are high risk. Hitherto, the deaths reported throughout the world have been of older, vulnerable immunocompromised people, not children or young, healthy adults.

I hope the Government have a strategy. I have absolute confidence in our advisers Professor Chris Whitty —the CMO—Professor Sir Jeremy Farrar and Professor Peter Piot, who I know are the world experts in containment of pandemics. However, the Government need to be more stringent in the advice they are giving to the general public on the value of things such as handwashing, using tissues and, importantly, self-isolating. When the numbers involved get bigger, that is when the risk is that people will not self-isolate and take that advice. The Government need to be more stringent about that.

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, has expressed it all very well and with infinitely more authority and knowledge than I could have done. He has described very well the dilemma facing policymakers, because we simply do not know the behaviours of the virus. We do not know exactly how infectious it will be; we do not know which demographics it will target; and we do not necessarily know how mortal it will be. We hope for the best but are planning for the absolute worst. The noble Lord is right: the clear guidance for high-risk groups is critical. As I have already mentioned, there is a plan for a substantial awareness campaign, but its effectiveness will rely on the saliency of the subject matter. At this stage of the cycle, the British public are not necessarily tuned into the risk or at the point where they are seeking to address their behaviours, although I suspect that that moment is approaching very quickly. I reassure the House that all the preparations have been put in place. The creative is incredibly impressive and the detail is being thought through, and I believe that the impact will be profound.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

One hypothesis on which people are working is that this disease started with bats. Is there a possibility that other species of mammal or perhaps birds could be infected or could be carriers, possibly including domestic or farm animals, or are our veterinary authorities confident that that cannot be the case?

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Lord asks a perfectly fair question but I am not a qualified virologist. Certainly, I do not know the answer to that and I am not sure that even the virologists are certain about it at the moment, but it will be investigated.

[Lord Patel]

The reason I suggested that it came from bats is that there is an 85% genomic match in the sequencing of the viruses affecting humans and bats. On the other hand, the sequencing of the virus in pangolins is showing virtually a 100% match. However, it will not come to farm animals—they are not bothered by this virus—so chickens and sheep will not be affected.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

It is unusual to have that kind of interruption. Perhaps I may ask that Peers ask short questions to allow more Back-Benchers to intervene.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the points about both capacity and testing. Noble Lords might have heard Nick Robinson on the “Today” programme this morning describe his experience. Having come back from abroad, he contacted 111 and was advised to go to his local hospital, where, as he described it, he was extremely well treated. However, it involved huge resources. A nurse, booted and suited, as it were, came out to him in the car park and escorted him through the hospital and so on. As he commented, that simply cannot be replicated many times. Can the Minister reassure the House about the capacity for testing of that type? Happily, Nick Robinson was okay.

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has put it very well. Testing is absolutely critical to the correct treatment of this virus. There is a race on to find cheap, easily applied and speedy testing arrangements. That will help us avoid the kinds of complex arrangements that Nick Robinson vividly described. The NHS is proceeding incredibly energetically. Financial arrangements are not holding back any of the work that is being done, and resources are being thrown at that in a very big way.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has spoken a lot about the tests. Can he give us an estimate of their accuracy? Is there a large number of false negatives or false positives in the test results?

[Lord Bethell]

My noble friend asks a very reasonable question. It raises the issue of heat tests at airports—which I know that he did not ask about—which is a subject of concern. Certainly, temperature tests provide a large number of false positives, and that is why they have not been applied at British airports. However, the saliva tests being used in clinical conditions at the moment are thought to be very reliable indeed, and the number of false positives is very low.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I echo the thanks from all sides of the House to the medical and administrative staff. We need to acknowledge that at the moment, most of them are not, of course, at risk; but it is very stressful just thinking that you might be, and that stress needs to be acknowledged. The Statement referred to working closely with the WHO, the G7 and the wider international community. There was no specific reference to working closely with the EU regime of communicable disease control, which is co-ordinated by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control in Stockholm. That oversees the early warning and response system and the emergency mechanism for the approval of pandemic medicines by the European Medicines Agency.

My understanding is that we are still part of the EWRS system, but we do not have any say in the decision-making. At the end of this year, when the transition period ends, we will fall out of that system unless special arrangements are made. I understand that Switzerland, which is not part of the medical countermeasures rapid approval procedure for testing, treatment and vaccines, has applied for special access to that system. Have we also applied for special access to it? How are we working with our EU neighbours, who have a very sophisticated system? What will the situation be in less than a year’s time?

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Baroness asks a detailed question on an important part of our response. British scientists have done an enormous amount to investigate an antidote to the virus; £20 million has been put into research into those arrangements. We are absolutely at the forefront of trying to find some kind of antidote. The regulatory arrangements for that are not in my brief, so I cannot answer her question directly. I reassure the House that British scientists are absolutely working hard; they are well resourced, and any regulatory arrangements that are needed to find the right medicines for this virus will be put into place.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the authoritative way he has given this Statement and provided reassurance to the House. I join other noble Lords in recognising the efforts of many health and non-health staff in dealing with this, not just in the UK but abroad.

I want to ask a specific question about the advice being given to schools. The Statement said that schools should refer, if they are unsure, to regional schools commissioners. He will know that such commissioners were not set up to provide public health advice but to supervise the structure of the school system. What access are they getting to advice from Public Health England and its equivalents across the UK to make sure that they are getting the right advice, and not closing when they should not close or opening when they should not open? I declare my interest in and involvement in schools as a concerned parent.

[Lord Bethell]

My noble friend asks a characteristically detailed question. There has been a huge hunger on the part of schools over the last few days for more accurate information about how to respond. As a result, the Department for Education has put in place a regular email directly to the schools themselves—to headmasters and governors. This is currently planned to happen weekly, but that will change as events progress. The email refers to the provision of further information on the DfE website. Arrangements for hotlines and follow-up information are being put in place.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. The Minister, in repeating the Statement, identified the four-part plan, of which the third part is research and co-ordination with international partners. Can he reassure the House that mechanisms are in place for the early adoption, at pace and scale, throughout the NHS of any innovations in diagnosis, prevention and treatment that could have a profound impact in reducing the overall burden of this disease?

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Lord is right to emphasise this point. The clinical treatment of the virus is in part through the medicine itself. We have to be realistic about whether a medical solution to the virus will be found before the peak epidemic. One is instinctively optimistic that such a thing can happen, but it cannot be guaranteed. However, there are also the procedures and arrangements for nursing and looking after patients as they go through the cycle of the virus, and such best practice is absolutely the priority of the Chief Medical Officer. Arrangements have been put in place to spread that best practice through the trusts and CCGs that provide front-line care.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I was listening closely to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, when he was asking his question earlier. If I heard him rightly, he said that if this becomes a pandemic, four out of five people in this country might become infected. That is a very alarming number, not just because four out of five people will get ill but because of the impact on all kinds of social and other activities, including economic ones. Do the Government themselves recognise that figure as a likely outcome in a pandemic situation? Is any information currently available about the immunity, either short-term or long-term, that may or may not be conferred on those who have already succumbed to the virus?

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Lady is correct, inasmuch as we should be prepared for and able to envisage the possibility that the virus may spread through a large proportion of the country. The Government are looking at all possible scenarios. However, I do not recognise the numbers that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has provided, and the Government are not yet providing forecasts for the virus. Certainly the worst-case situation could be of the order that she describes, but that estimate is not based on scientific forecasting.

On the question of our arrangements for the possible impact, that is difficult to predict because we do not know the speed with which it would spread through the population. Creating some kind of herd immunity, whereby a large proportion of the population has had the virus and is therefore inoculated, is clearly the objective—well, not the objective; rather, it is one of the results of the virus passing through, as flu viruses do regularly. It is expected that it will be a one-off experience, so herd immunity will actually provide resistance to future visits by the virus.

Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

18:58

Moved by

[Lord True]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 14 January be approved.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, in coming to the Dispatch Box for the first time to answer for the Cabinet Office, if the House will allow me, I want to place on record my appreciation of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. His charm, urbanity and liberal mind won the affection of everyone in the House, and in doing business his openness, intelligence and sense of duty won the respect of the House. If I can do half as good a job as he did, I will have tried to serve the House well.

The health of our democracy depends on elections being accessible and fair for voters and those seeking election. Last February, an important step forward was taken towards ensuring disabled candidates standing elections share a level playing field and are treated fairly. The election expenses exclusion order made sure that expenses incurred as a result of a candidate’s disability would no longer count towards their limit on election spending when taking part in UK-wide elections, including parliamentary general elections.

This instrument will prevent disability-related expenses having to be counted as part of a disabled candidate’s election spending limit in a police and crime commissioner election. PCCs should be as reflective as possible of the diverse communities that they serve and to whom they are accountable. We must make sure that the process of standing in any election does not itself unfairly impact upon disabled people and make them less likely to stand for election.

That is why, through this instrument, we are seeking to help remove one potential barrier that might prevent disabled people running to be a police and crime commissioner and represent their community. The instrument will insert disability-related expenses into Part 2 of Schedule 7 to the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012, which set out the general exclusions from the spending limits of candidates standing at PCC elections. The result will be that reasonably incurred disability-related expenditure will not form part of a disabled candidate’s expenses and will therefore not contribute to their spending limits.

The instrument also brings forward changes to election forms so that they are clearer to voters about when a PCC has been given the power to undertake fire and rescue authority functions, which currently applies in only four authorities. This will make sure that, in most places, all relevant election forms better inform voters about the scope of the functions of the PCC being elected.

We have consulted on this instrument with the Electoral Commission, there has been cross-government collaboration between the departments involved and all the consulted stakeholders have been supportive of the proposals. The Parliamentary Parties Panel has also been informed that the changes are being brought forward. It is a panel that, as noble Lords will know, meets on a quarterly basis to discuss electoral issues, consisting of representatives of each of the parties that have two or more MPs. We believe it is vital that the instrument is in place as soon as possible so that these changes are effective during the preparations for and the build-up to the PCC elections, which next come on 7 May. That is why the instrument will come into force the day after it is made.

The Electoral Commission released guidance in January of this year for the upcoming May PCC elections that included information on the exemption being brought forward today. This should ensure that candidates can take note of the exemption in reasonable time before the election.

By providing a more level playing field for disabled people standing for PCC elections, and giving voters clearer information about what powers they are voting a PCC candidate to take on, this instrument builds on the wider work the Government are undertaking to support our democracy and make elections more accessible to voters and candidates alike. The changes may seem a little administrative and technical in nature, but I am sure noble Lords will agree that their application in the real world for local democracy will be actual and tangible, and I know that they will be appreciated by some people. I commend this instrument to the House.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord True, to his position as Minister. I am sure we will have some humorous debates. I am sure they will be lively and I fear that some of them will be very controversial, but this evening’s debate is not really a controversial one, because I am sure that nobody in this House will think that anyone who is disadvantaged by disability should have to bear the additional costs of personal expenses arising from their disability counting against any limit on campaign expenditure.

I am not sure it is really enough to say that, if they have these additional costs, they should not count against the limit if they have the funds. The question really is: how could they be helped to have the funds to make sure that they can compete on a level playing field? My first question to the Minister in his new position is: what is the Government’s current attitude towards helping disabled candidates stand for election? We have experience of the Access to Elected Office Fund and the EnAble Fund, but I understand that, after 31 March, there will be no funding from a government source to help disabled people to stand in these or any future elections.

Overall, as the Minister outlined, the changes proposed to election regulations are really common sense, but the need to make these minor changes highlights the way that we need to codify and modernise all our election laws, as recommended by the Law Commissions some years ago. What can he tell us about the Government’s current attitude towards codifying and modernising the whole range of election laws? The Law Commissions have done much of the work on this; they say that there are so many different pieces of legislation and there have been so many new elections since that legislation was drafted that we need to look at this issue as a whole, instead of, as I fear we will, looking at each individual bit of legislation. The danger will be that, as we look at each individual bit of legislation and potential reforms, the accusation may be made in this House that legislation is brought forward for particular parts of election law that favour a particular party that is in government and not parties that are not in government. Surely it would be better to follow the advice of the Law Commissions and look at all our election law in the round, codify it properly, modernise it and make sure we proceed on a fair basis.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to his place. I have watched him on the Back Benches over a number of years and wondered when his day would come; it has finally come and I congratulate him.

Article 2(3) of the order

“adds to that list of matters reasonably incurred expenditure by or on behalf of a disabled candidate that is reasonably attributable to the candidate’s disability.”

I understand that, in law, the word “reasonable” is very expensive and can lead to court cases, contests and arguments with officials about what constitutes reasonableness. I wonder whether we can have some explanation. To give an example, who will decide what is reasonable? Could it be that, if a person is in receipt of a benefit relating to disability, that in itself would lead to a qualification? Could it be simply a personal statement, where somebody says, “I am disabled”, or a doctor’s note saying that the person is sufficiently disabled? The word “reasonable” always worries me when I see it in law and I just wonder if we can hear a little more. We have a former Lord Chancellor here who smiles when I suggest that it is an expensive word—perhaps he would like to intervene to tell us what he believes would be the construct in this particular case.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord True, to the Dispatch Box today. I congratulate him on his appointment and I wish him well with his new responsibilities. I look forward to the many debates we will have over the coming weeks and months. I also very much agree with his comments about the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who I enjoyed working with very much and who is always worth listening to.

I have no issue whatever with the order before us today. A number of points have been raised, which I support, and I look forward to the noble Lord’s response. It is right that we ensure that candidates with a disability are able to stand for election so that we can ensure that our elected officials and officers reflect the people that they represent. I am very happy to support the order to ensure that expenditure related to a candidate’s disability does not come out of the election expenditure limit.

I follow on from the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made. I have mentioned it many times before and, every time, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would agree with me. I would say, “Our election law is not fit for purpose,” and he would say, “I agree entirely.” We had a number of meetings—the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy all came along—and discussed these things. Everyone agrees that our election law is not fit for purpose and we have to sort it out.

One good thing about the election result is that this Government have been in office now for four or five years. They are not worried about what is going on at the other end, so they have plenty of time to look at this properly. We have to sort out election law; it is not fit for purpose. It was created for analogue elections; we now have digital elections, and we really must sort this out. I implore the noble Lord, when he goes back to his officials in the Cabinet Office, to tell his colleagues that they should use the fact that they have a majority in the other place to make sure that we can quickly, but also calmly, get to a situation where we can revise our electoral law to ensure that when people are elected, the law around the elections is fit for purpose and does what it is supposed to do. Having said that, I fully support the order before the House today.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their kind comments. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, say that we may be having some controversial and lively debates in the future, perhaps I should fix those comments in aspic so that I can save them and later bring them out of the fridge. But I respect tremendously each of the noble Lords who spoke, and I am very grateful for their comments.

On the EnAble Fund and its continuation, there is a point that the political parties have to accept their own responsibility to encourage disabled candidates to stand, as parties do. In terms of helping disabled people, every part of society has its contribution to make, and that must include political parties. The EnAble Fund was designed as an interim measure to allow political parties time to put in place support themselves. We are not reiterating the fact that political parties have a place. The Government are considering what support they might provide to succeed the current EnAble Fund, which I acknowledge is running out. The disability unit is currently considering options in connection with the national strategy for disabled people, which is due to be published later this year, so I can give the noble Lord some encouragement on that. But I reiterate that this applies to all political parties, and that they all deserve praise for what they are doing to encourage disabled candidates.

In the general points made by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Kennedy of Southwark—who was elected a councillor on the same day as I was in 1986; we have tramped our parallel ways while serving our parties since then, and it is very nice to see him opposite—they both asked more broadly about what the Government were going to do to deal with electoral law. On my first outing at the Dispatch Box, I am not going to rise as a trout to those particular flies, but I will take note of what both noble Lords said and will take that back to colleagues.

On the question that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised about the word “reasonable”, I am not going to tread too far into that area for obvious reasons, having spent some years throwing darts at the person on the Front Bench from behind. With a former Lord Chancellor behind, I am not going to have a long go at it. But it is true that the draft order does not define what a “reasonable” election expense is. There is an argument that trying to provide an exhaustive list of such expenses would potentially narrow the scope of application and could exclude some disability-related expenses that have not been listed.

The order gives some examples of the kind of thing that might be applied, but the Government want to ensure that the order exempts all—I must not use the “r” word that the noble Lord mentioned—disability election expenses that it can. I can give him further details of how the system actually works, but there is, first of all, a process of examination of the case and, secondly, obviously anybody who infringes electoral law in any form faces the risk of penalties thereafter. There is a balance, in that there is a right of confidentiality: some people wish to have some confidence about their disability and that also has to be taken into account. The reason there is no list of particular cases is that if something were inadvertently omitted it would be excluded from scope. I hope that that answers the question of the noble Lord, and if he would like any more information, I am sure we could provide it. If there are no more questions, I will thank noble Lords who have taken part.

The Government appreciate the unity on this matter. The instrument makes an important if small change to the electoral system. It can only be a good thing for local democratic representation and accountability: we all want to see more participation in that. Having made those points and tried to answer the questions, and having acknowledged the kindly comments, I commend the order to the House.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 7.16 pm.