Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same. The time limit is one hour.
Animal Welfare and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Animal Welfare and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument amends earlier EU exit regulations relating to three areas: animal welfare, leghold traps and pelt imports, and invasive non-native species. These amendments ensure that EU retained law continues to remain effective and operable from the end of the transition period and in accordance with the Northern Ireland protocol. This instrument amends the regulations relating to the welfare of animals during transport, at control posts and at slaughter, and ensures that they remain operable in line with the Northern Ireland protocol.
This instrument will end recognition in Great Britain of transporter authorisations, driver and attendant certificates of competence, vehicle approvals and journey logs issued by an EU member state. From the end of the transition period, EU transporters will need to apply to a competent authority for these documents to be able to continue to transport animals in and through Great Britain. This will allow for greater enforcement, create a level playing field and ensure that GB transporters are not commercially disadvantaged. Transport documents issued in Northern Ireland will continue to be accepted for use in Great Britain. Additionally, it ensures that we meet obligations under the UK-Ireland common travel area by making provision for training carried out in the Republic of Ireland to be recognised as equivalent to that of Great Britain for the purposes of granting a driver or attendant certificate of competence in Great Britain.
This instrument makes amendments to regulations protecting animals at slaughter and will ensure that slaughterers’ certificates of competence issued in any part of the UK will continue to be recognised across Great Britain. Without these amendments, EU transporters could continue to remove animals into and through the UK, but we would lack the ability to take enforcement action if they breached the welfare in transport rules. The ability to suspend or revoke a certificate of competence or a transporter authorisation, following an animal welfare incident, until that transporter has been retrained is, we believe, an important enforcement mechanism. Live animal movements should be carefully planned and based on predicted journey times; for long journeys these must be approved by the competent authority, as any delay can result in significant animal welfare issues. The amendment will ensure that from the start of the year, EU transporters will need to apply to the GB competent authority to gain approval of their planned journeys.
Existing exit instruments made operability amendments to the retained EU leghold trap regulation. The regulation prohibits the use of leghold traps and the import of pelts and manufactured goods from certain wild animal species. The proposed amendments in this instrument make the retained EU legislation compatible with the requirements of the Northern Ireland protocol and ensure that imports of pelts and pelt products from the EU will be treated in the same way as imports from any other third country. It will continue to prohibit the use of leghold traps in Great Britain and to ensure that only pelts sourced from captive-bred animals or from approved countries which abide by humane trapping standards are imported. This will maintain the high standards and existing controls that are currently in place around pelt imports.
Finally, this instrument amends retained EU exit regulations relating to invasive species. Again, these are technical amendments to ensure the proper working of retained EU law and domestic legislation for regulating the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive non-native species. These changes implement the Northern Ireland protocol and make minor changes to improve enforcement and ensure the effective implementation of emergency measures under domestic legislation.
The amendments make provision for the devolved Administrations to be consulted appropriately over species listing and decisions in reserved matters. Changes also allow traders in Northern Ireland to continue to use already established rules on the sale of commercial stocks after a species has been listed. The amendments ensure that specimens do not have to be transported to England or Wales if seized at the UK border. This allows border officials in Northern Ireland and Scotland to send seized animals to local facilities instead of having to send them to England or Wales. They also make a minor change relating to civil sanctions to bring clarity to the procedure and appeal rights for non-compliance penalties served following breach of an enforcement undertaking.
Further, these changes allow for temporary emergency restrictions on previously unlisted species to be introduced and enforced promptly. These amendments ensure that the Northern Ireland protocol is upheld and, in line with current government policy, that we can enforce our high animal welfare standards and protect the United Kingdom’s biosecurity. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome very much the opportunity to discuss the regulations before us today. I have a number of comments to make and questions to ask.
Obviously, it is important to keep invasive and non-invasive species under review. What is the general rule? For example, does the department keep under regular review brent geese, grey squirrels and badgers, given all the damage they do?
On the implications for protecting animals at the time of slaughter, the fact that many small abattoirs were closed some 20 years ago is a matter of regret. Does the department intend to keep this under review, and what chance is there of small abattoirs being brought back, which would be very welcome in rural areas?
The number of vets is a cause for concern, particularly given that fewer are coming from the European Union and those who are here may decide to leave. Presumably, it takes approximately six years to train a vet. Does my noble friend share my concern about the number of vets who will be available at the point of slaughter from 1 January, and what specific measures will be taken? I welcome the increase in the number of vets going through university at the moment, but there may be an immediate shortage, so what steps are the Government taking to ensure that that will be addressed from 1 January?
In the event of a no deal or even a minimal deal—what we are apparently calling the “Australia deal”—there may be delays at ports, which would potentially lead to a short-term animal welfare issue. How will this be monitored at ports, in particular Kent and Holyhead, and how will this be addressed from 1 January? A limited number of animals will be transported live, but how will this be addressed in the event of delays, especially in hot weather later next year?
The 33rd report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has been extremely useful in preparing for today, quotes Defra as saying:
“Although EU and GB standards will remain aligned at the end of the transition period, we have ambitions to strengthen the welfare in transport standards in the near future. We want to ensure that going forward EU transporters who move live animals into Great Britain adhere to our standards.”
I am sure that anybody wishing to import will do so, but more especially when exporting as well. Will my noble friend give a commitment today that the Government will absolutely respect the World Trade Organization rules in this regard and ensure—albeit at a minimum—that live trade, such as, for example, lambs to France for the season in spring, will continue?
I am concerned, particularly given the announcement that George Eustice is making or has made today, that the livestock farming industry is not being as well looked after by this Government as it has been in the past. I think that the live trade in animals is something like one in six. In 1992, when this became an issue, I boarded a ferry to see how these animals were being transported, and I was hugely impressed by the length that the transporters and hauliers went to to ensure that the lambs were enjoying the best conditions possible—and I was certainly persuaded that they enjoyed better conditions than those that we similarly enjoyed at the time on cross-channel ferries.
In relation to pelts and the import of pelt products, I understand that there is currently still a ban on mink and fur from Denmark, because of the Covid regulations there. This is a source of deep concern to me, being half Danish. Is this something that the Government are keeping under review—not just from Denmark but from other areas that are affected by the cross-contamination of the Covid virus in mink? When will this ban be reviewed and what are the implications for the fur trade?
In the 33rd report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Defra is further quoted as saying that the process to apply for the documents to which my noble friend referred will not change. Is it a new charge that is referred to in paragraph 40, where it states that TAs and journey logs are currently issued free of charge, COCs cost around £360 per certificate including training, while vehicle approval costs around £200 per vehicle? Has there been an impact assessment? Was a consultation held, and were the results of the consultation published? What will be the average cost per transporter, and will the Government keep this under review? I will, obviously, continue to take an interest in this, but I welcome the opportunity to discuss these points today.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
It is a pleasure to follow the excellent and apposite questions from the noble Baroness. I will add a few questions of my own, and give the Minister the chance in his summation to update us on various issues, many of which I think have been around since the Brexit vote, and certainly since the initial version of the regulations were passed. To my mind, issues in a number of areas remain uncertain.
First, beyond the bald legal changes in the regulations being amended today, is there yet agreement on how they will be made to work across all four countries of the UK without the co-ordinating function of the European Commission? How has that been working over recent months?
I noted that the Minister said in the debate on 22 January last year, when the regulations were initially laid:
“We are proposing that the programme board on non-native species takes over the role of the committee, while the GB non-native risk analysis panel will take on the role of the scientific forum”.—[Official Report, 22/1/19; col. 675]
Has this now been established, and will the Minister update the Committee today on those arrangements?
Secondly, how in practice will the UK continue to co-operate with the European Union on invasive non-native species surveillance and management? This question has been asked in parallel in many different parts of regulation, way beyond the environmental sphere. It is obviously of critical importance. The Minister has stressed throughout this process that there will be close co-operation, as we would expect. However, the effectiveness will be in how these measures work out in practice.
In the world before Brexit, the European Union was central to the Government’s biosecurity strategy. The perusal of the 2014 strategy, as it was laid out, begs a number of questions now about how that close co-operation will work. For example, the EU regulations specified particular requirements for inspections of controlled trades. Do the regulations require that those same regulations are to be followed post Brexit? Is that the Government’s intention, if there is no legal requirement to do that?
Are there now plans for the routine checks of plants and plant material that would previously have been prohibited under the single market rules? If so, what has been set out to do that and what level of resource would be required?
For many years, the European Union plant health regime has applied the risk-based categorisation of material from outside the EU: prohibited, controlled and uncontrolled. Post January, how will the UK regime have regard to that—or is it doing so now? Does it expect to lean on the research done by the European Union? Does it have its own separate analysis? When the regulations were scrutinised last year, the question was raised of whether the UK would have formal access to that analysis and intelligence. At the time, the Minister’s response, understandably, was “Wait and see”. Can he give us an update? How will the plant passport system work post January?
Finally, I want to ask about the prospect of an increased commitment on invasive species that have long been on these islands. When various Ministers, past and present, were selling the biosecurity benefits of Brexit, they talked about it being an opportunity to increase biosecurity levels. I want to bring the Minister back to an issue that was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh: the grey squirrel. Is this not an opportunity for firmer government support for communities such as those in Cumbria that seek increased support to deal with the grey squirrel, which, in our area and other areas of the UK, continues to endanger livelihoods and the sustainability of the native red squirrel.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining this statutory instrument, which clearly is necessary. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for clearly outlining some of the issues arising from it. I will try not to ask the same questions that the noble Baroness asked, but I will address some of the same issues, perhaps sometimes from a different perspective.
I will start with transport. Obviously, there is some concern that a changeover will happen rapidly, in one day. The noble Baroness talked about what might happen in the coming months, particularly from 1 January. Has any consideration been given to asking for a moratorium or even providing a regulatory limit, given that there clearly is a risk of real problems in the early days and weeks, in order to ensure that animals do not get trapped in enormously long queues? Will there be provision to ensure that animal transports with possible welfare issues can be shuffled through those queues, so that the animals do not remain in what could be very cold conditions for an inappropriately long time?
Turning to EU transporters having to apply for all the paperwork listed in the statutory instrument, does the Minister know how many vehicles are likely to be affected? How many that can already apply have already done so? I am thinking of situations that could arise from a shortage of vehicles and new people coming into the industry without the experience that operators might have built up over many years. Have the Government considered whether there are any extra training needs, in order to ensure that there are skilled, experienced people with the right equipment and knowledge to ensure that animals are transported, where necessary, safely?
I also want to address the issue of mink and Covid-19, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised, although I am definitely coming from a different perspective. I consider mink farming to be a disastrous and, as we now know, dangerous practice; it would be very good if no more mink pelts came into the UK—or, indeed, farmed animal pelts of any kind, perhaps. However, given the risk of zoonoses such as Covid-19, what continuing monitoring will the Government bring in to make sure that the risk of transmission of both animal and human disease through pelts is adequately addressed?
I also want to address some broader issues. As others have already noted, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was told that the Government have ambitions to strengthen welfare and transport standards in the near future. I note that during both the Brexit referendum campaign and the 2019 general election, Boris Johnson, among many others, suggested that, for some people, a reason for leaving a European Union with very little in the way of a level playing field would be a ban on live animal exports. How is that ban coming along, and what are the Government’s plans?
I note the general desire expressed by the Government to strengthen animal welfare provisions; however, some deeply disturbing events are taking place. In the Peak District in recent weeks, mountain hares have been slaughtered and used in stink pits to trap other animals. The Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust, among many others, has been campaigning to end the use of stink pits. Scotland plans to increase the protections for mountain hares. Can the Minister tell me now or at some future point whether the Government are looking at the situation of mountain hares and stink pits? Are there any plans to change the current situation?
The statutory instrument refers to leg-hold traps. We are one of only five countries in Europe in which snares are legal. There are slightly different rules and interpretations in Wales, Scotland and England, but this is of course an area of grave concern to many people. The League Against Cruel Sports calculated, based on the Government’s own research, that 1.7 million animals a year are killed in these traps. Although the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states that they should be set only for rabbits and foxes, given that so many other animals are regularly caught in them—I am thinking of particularly horrific film footage of a badger, and the reports we hear about domestic pets regularly being caught in, injured by and sometimes even killed by such snares—are the Government taking this opportunity, in reconsidering animal welfare, to look at the whole issue of snares and to consider joining most of the countries of Europe in banning them?
I am aware that I have asked lots of questions and I understand that it might not be possible to get answers to all of them today, but I would appreciate answers at some point.
Lord Greaves (LD) [V]
My Lords, this statutory instrument contains a series of very technical measures, which in many ways are simply a continuation of the present position in relation to all these issues: animal welfare, the movement in import and export of livestock, and the whole question of invasive animal and plant species. The Minister very kindly offered the opposition parties a briefing on these matters, which unfortunately I could not get to in the end, but I thank him for it anyway. I hope that I did not miss anything desperate.
It is a pleasure to take part in my first debate with the noble Lord, Lord Walney, who is waving at me. He is very welcome, in the sense that he is another Member of your Lordships’ House from the north-west of England, which for many people is far away. We may be few and far between, but any addition to the ranks is extremely valuable and helpful, and I very much welcome him to the House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about animal welfare in a number of ways. The questions that she asked were relevant, and I look forward to the Minister’s answers. Today we are having the launch of new measures in relation to farming and land management that come from the Agriculture Bill, which we recently spent a lot of time debating in this House. We passed a Bill that allows the Government to do all kinds of things, some of them extremely welcome in terms of improving the contribution of farming and land management to the natural environment, biodiversity, carbon reduction and the continued supply of good, wholesome food in this country—and, we hope, the increase in all that.
What I have seen so far of today’s launch does not take us much further than saying that it is full of all kinds of good things, which we will look forward to when we see more of the details—and, no doubt, lots of statutory instruments such as this one. In terms of animal welfare, can the Minister confirm that those parts of the Agriculture Act that refer to improved animal husbandry and welfare on farms as well as improved biodiversity and support for native wildlife and animal species, such as the red squirrel that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, mentioned, will still be a government priority?
More important than the question of movement when it comes to alien plant species—although it is very important indeed that checks are kept at least as good as they are now, and preferably improved—is the management of alien species once they have set foot and taken hold on a large scale in this country. Earlier this year, the Government gave their response to a consultation on alien plant species and on a number of the most important ones growing in the wild. Can the Minister give us an update in relation to what is happening to the consultation and the Government’s response, as well as to efforts to eradicate these entirely unhelpful species that exist?
While we are on this, I cannot avoid mentioning Japanese knotweed, which was not on the list and which has been around for rather a long time. For the last few years, the Government have promised us all sorts of magic solutions to this, but we do not seem to have got them yet. Can the Minister update us on what is happening about that?
On the whole question of alien species, there are long-standing nuisances such as grey squirrels, which many people love and delight in having in their area—there is a lot of education to be done in large areas of England if we are going to move to replacing grey squirrels with the red squirrels that they replaced, not just in places where they are still hanging on, such as the Lake District. It would be very helpful if we could have a House of Lords debate on these matters as soon as possible, because major issues of management need discussing now that, as the Minister might perhaps say, we have “taken back control” of what we do about them. As the noble Lord, Lord Walney, said, this is about co-ordination of action across the United Kingdom. The Scottish Highlands is an area where red squirrels can still be seen; I have seen them in the Highlands, as well as in the Lake District. That co-ordination across the United Kingdom is very important, as is the level of resources that go into this work. Again, as the noble Lord said, that is something that needs serious attention.
As always, I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, had to say—in this case, about small abattoirs and vets. I remember when we had a small abattoir in our town; it was a damned nuisance because the blood ran across the back street. Now we have the biggest abattoir in the north of England, which is a rather different matter. But getting back to small abattoirs, if it is in any way possible, particularly in the more remote rural parts of this country, is an important issue.
All the issues raised are interesting and important. Most of them are probably not specifically and technically related to what the statutory instrument actually says, but I look forward to the Minister’s reply on all of them.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI this afternoon and for organising the very helpful briefing beforehand, which I was able to attend. We have heard some interesting contributions and a number of questions, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. It is clear that the changes in the proposed SI are necessary in the three different areas that it covers— namely, to secure the continuation of an effective regime for animal welfare in transport, slaughter and other areas; to continue the ban on leg-hold traps and the import of pelts obtained by that method; and to ensure that the strict protections placed against invasive non-native species are maintained. It also, importantly, provides continuity to business in these areas after the end of the transition period. I understand that reciprocal arrangements are being discussed with the Republic of Ireland but have not yet been finalised, so I would be grateful if the Minister could keep us informed on progress in this area.
We welcome the overall purpose of these regulations, which is to uphold these high standards in different areas of animal welfare and associated trade policy and apply the rules to EU countries in the same way as to other third countries. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, covered the area of animal welfare in great detail, so I shall not repeat her questions. However, I have a number of questions for the Minister, and I would be grateful for his clarification. A number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of getting the transport arrangements right. The Minister mentioned that one of the main changes is that of transporters having to apply for documentation from a competent authority in Great Britain rather than the EU. How and in what way is that being communicated to interested parties?
It is inevitable, as with any new system when it is introduced, that there will be teething problems. Is there any form of discretion that can be exercised if a transport arrives at a port without the relevant paperwork? If not, have the Government considered what kind of delay this is likely to cause, at what potential cost, and how those teething problems can be resolved?
Looking at the Explanatory Memorandum, I see that paragraph 10.2 talks about the consultation, and consultation outcomes. It states that Her Majesty’s Government have engaged with industry representatives on the recognition of EU journey logs and other certificates and authorisations that are required. Will the Minister outline the nature and timing of this engagement, and can we have an assurance from him that interested parties will be properly consulted ahead of any future policy changes?
On invasive non-native species, I will first say that it was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, talk about the red squirrel population. It is very important to support that. I am fortunate enough to have red squirrels visiting my garden and it is very important that we do not lose this precious species. On the other hand, I am not so fortunate in that I regularly battle with Himalayan balsam, which we also have growing extensively along the riverbanks on our land. I welcome the strengthening of these regulations so that emergency measures can be applied in order to add new species, and also the fact that the regulations have been approached in a co-ordinated manner across Great Britain. It is important that we control these invasive species as much as possible and that there is both contingency planning and the ability for a rapid response when required.
I will draw attention also to a couple of paragraphs of the Explanatory Memorandum. First, paragraph 2.24 says that changes to enforcement legislation will
“enable enforcement officers to use discretion when transferring seized specimens to appropriate facilities”.
Will the Minister provide further detail on what this discretion is likely to entail? The Minister also drew our attention to the proposal that items seized in Scotland would be allowed to be transported to a Scottish rather than English facility. Is this the full extent of the change, or will it be extended beyond that?
I think I will end there. We have a lot of questions for the Minister to answer, so I would be very grateful for his consideration of these matters and await his response with interest.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for contributing to this debate. We have gone quite wide, but all the topics have been fascinating. I will start by saying that these regulations do not amend any current animal welfare standards. What they do is make operability changes to ensure that the EU law that we have will work appropriately at the end of the transition period.
A number of key points were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised the issue of transporters. This is very important. We have undertaken a significant amount of work to provide information to GB transporters to ensure that they are ready for the end of the transition period: for example, on the new requirements for transporter authorisation, certificates of competence, vehicle approval certification and journey logs. We have reminded them of these responsibilities, including the need to plan their journeys carefully to check that their proposed route is available and to ensure that they have contingency plans in place in the event of any delays. We have published a full list of updates on GOV.UK, as well as providing direct communication and a comprehensive Q&A document to all authorised transporters.
We have also disseminated information about the changes to our counterparts in the EU and have actively encouraged them to share it with their own transporters. Feedback received through APHA and through our stakeholder meetings and webinars has confirmed that both GB and EU transporters are aware of the new requirements and are preparing for the end of the transition period. We are aware, for instance, that GB drivers are already approaching EU member states to apply for certificates of competence.
I turn to inspections. APHA conducts inspections at ports on a risk and intelligence basis. If a transporter arrives at the port and welfare issues are identified, action will be taken by APHA to protect the welfare of the animals concerned. Appropriate regulatory and enforcement action could be taken. This may include, for example, a suspension of transporter authorisation or certificate of competence. I have some further information on that but obviously, we will want to keep all these matters under scrutiny because, clearly, what we want is a vibrant, smooth-running border and the continuance of trade. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about changes. Obviously, we will want to consult because, in the end, this will have the success and the dynamic we all want only if there is that collaboration.
I turn to a number of the points that have been made. My noble friend Lady McIntosh—and, I think, all noble Lords—raised the issue of invasive species, including the grey squirrel and the wonderful red squirrel. The grey squirrel is on the list of species under the Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019 and we no longer allow the release of grey squirrels from animal rescue centres. We are working closely with the UK Squirrel Accord and APHA on the fertility and control of grey squirrels, and I can tell noble Lords that this is an area on which I place great importance. Not only have we got the red squirrel to protect; we want to plant more trees and we want nature recovery, and the grey squirrel is a very bad invasive species for everything we want relating to trees.
On the discretion of enforcement officers regarding invasive non-native species, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that these amendments ensure that when border officials in Northern Ireland and Scotland seize animals at the UK border, common sense can prevail and they can send them to local facilities rather than to England and Wales.
A number of other points were made. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that we have issued comprehensive advice to all authorised transporters. The number of movements of live animals in January is usually quite low, and we believe that the impact will not be too great. APHA has recruited extra staff to process the additional applications for UK-based transporters. I say also to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that we will prioritise day-old chicks, but other live animals departing from the UK for the EU at the end of the transition period will be required to enter the EU via a border control post designed to deal with them. Transporters have a legal duty to ensure the welfare of animals in their care and should have in place contingency plans to ensure animal welfare even if there is disruption.
An important point was made about vets. I am working with vets from within the UK and also EU nationals, who play such a dramatically important part in the veterinary profession of this country. The Government are working with veterinary organisations to ensure that there is sufficient veterinary resource available to fulfil all duties.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, officials from both Defra and the FSA are working with the Sustainable Food Trust on the issues facing small abattoirs and what scope may exist to reduce regulatory burdens. In the end, it is imperative that we have high standards, whether for small or large operators, and we must ensure in all that we do that the safety of food is always paramount.
On the issue of rules on invasive species, a comprehensive review of this list is undertaken every six years. I should say that brent geese overwinter in the UK and therefore are on the native species list—and all of us have spoken at length about the grey squirrel.
Continuing EU collaboration on the issue of invasive species is absolutely essential. We have retained the regulation in our laws, so our stringent prohibition will remain the same. We will continue to remain a contracting party to the Berne convention and will work closely with counterpart jurisdictions. I have attended on a number of occasions the British-Irish Council and of course the island of Ireland is a single epidemiological unit. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we work on that.
On the issue of live exports, I say to both the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh that it is absolutely clear that we have a commitment to end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening, and we intend to consult on both our manifesto pledge and other more general welfare-in-transport improvements by the end of this year. So we will be fulfilling our manifesto pledge.
Going back to vehicles, approximately 2,000 are approved for the transport of live animals on long journeys in Great Britain. On snares, current legislation provides strong protection for threatened species and the welfare of trapped animals. Those committing an offence can face an unlimited fine or a custodial sentence. The onus is on trap operators to operate within the law and ensure that their activities do not harm protected species or cause unnecessary suffering.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the issue of mink. I am in constant touch with the Chief Veterinary Officer about this. Clearly, zoonosis is a very live issue at the moment, but always will be. We are keeping a close eye on the Danish situation and other countries where mink farming is undertaken.
Although I wish that there was an unlimited treasure chest to deal with invasive species, our efforts to tackle them are being considered as part of our business planning following the spending review settlement. I should also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that the common travel area agreement places obligations on the UK and the Republic of Ireland to ensure that their nationals have a right to settle and work in both territories. The UK intends to honour its obligations.
Time is short, and I was asked more questions than I could answer in double the time, so I will write to noble Lords on some of the other issues. However, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Walney, that quite a lot of the plant issues he raised may come up next week, but obviously, there will be checks on plants and plant material; it is very important that we keep our country biosecure. I am interested in how we can enhance biosecurity and continue trade in a sensible manner.
I will look at the other matters raised by noble Lords. In the meantime, I commend these technical and operable regulations to the Committee.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Microphones will no longer be turned on at all times in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin to speak. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same.
Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Grand Committee do consider the Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I hope it will be useful to your Lordships if I speak to both the Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 as both relate to food and drink policy.
The first set of regulations contains necessary amendments to EU agri-food, spirit drinks, wine and aromatised wine regulations so that they can function in domestic law. These primarily concern geographical indication—or GI—schemes, a form of intellectual property for food and drink products, but also extend to wine and spirit drinks sector standards.
I first want to address the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol. For the duration of the protocol, the EU GI framework will apply in Northern Ireland. As such, most of this instrument has the territorial extent of Great Britain. However, as these schemes will be administered and regulated by the UK Government, they will be referred to as “UK GI schemes”. Geographical indications are a form of intellectual property protection for the names of food, drink and agricultural products with qualities attributable to the place they are produced or the traditional methods by which they are made. Examples are Scotch whisky, Welsh lamb and Melton Mowbray pork pies. Most of the amendments made by this instrument are to the retained EU regulations that govern GI schemes. They collectively convert the four EU GI schemes into a legal framework for GI schemes in Great Britain.
The framework will allow applications for GI protection to be made to the Secretary of State by UK and international applicants. It will allow them to be scrutinised and consulted on, and for the Secretary of State to take decisions on awarding new GIs. In doing so we will condense what was a two-stage, member state to Commission application process into a single, streamlined domestic process. This means that decisions on protections for our food and drink products are made here in the UK and not in Brussels. Once awarded GI status, a product name is then added to the relevant public GI register established by this instrument. This means that GI protection formally takes effect in Great Britain, protecting the GI against misuse of its name. From 1 January, all existing UK GIs and EU GIs will be on our registers. These will be joined by international GI products protected through our trade agreements. The rules collectively ensure that the UK meets its WTO obligations under the TRIPS Agreement—the agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
Turning to GI logos, this instrument removes the requirement for EU GI logos to be used by British producers and establishes the new domestic logos. To avoid burdening producers, we are introducing a three-year period before logo use becomes mandatory on relevant British products. Other amendments to ensure the smooth operation of our GI schemes include new procedures enabling appeals to be made to a First-tier Tribunal; allowing Northern Ireland applications directly to the UK schemes without first requiring protection under the EU schemes; ensuring that UK applications to the EU that are undetermined at the end of the transition period transfer to the UK schemes; preserving the existing relationship between GIs and trade marks in determining if a trade mark can be granted; and ensuring the intellectual property protection of wine “traditional terms” such as “reserva”’ and “grand cru”.
The instrument also includes a much smaller number of non-GI amendments to the EU wine and spirit drinks sector rules. These include the definition, composition and labelling of spirit drinks; and the use of wine labelling terms, experimental winemaking practices, accompanying documents and the registers that must be maintained by wine operators. Finally, the instrument amends the domestic legislation which enables enforcement of the regulations. It makes separate amendments for Great Britain and to Northern Ireland to take account of the different regulations that will apply in each territory from 2021.
The devolved Administrations have given their consent to this instrument. Although the GI provisions are reserved, as intellectual property, Defra has built up a strong working relationship with the devolved Administrations on the GI schemes. Their interest in, and the value they can add to, the new schemes’ operations is recognised. Beyond the legislation, a working level arrangement has been agreed which sets out how the four nations will work together on the new GI schemes. In particular, the devolved Administrations will have a role in appraising new scheme applications and addressing scheme operations, and promotion and international trade. These rules collectively ensure that we have not only a fully functional GI framework, but one that enables and encourages our international reputation for quality food and drink to grow.
The Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 concern natural mineral waters and food information to consumers. Their main purpose is to place food information to consumers and natural mineral waters rules on a legal footing that accounts for the Northern Ireland protocol. They also make some minor technical amendments to retained direct EU legislation and domestic regulations to ensure the operability of this legislation at the end of the transition period. They do not bring a substantive change in policy.
Turning to natural mineral waters, the current legislation does not differentiate between EU retained law as applicable in England and EU regulations as applicable in Northern Ireland. These amendments are being made to reflect the position of Northern Ireland under the protocol. Also, previous EU exit legislation was laid to ensure the protection of the internal UK market by providing mutual recognition clauses with Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. This SI will amend those mutual recognition clauses to narrow their effect.
On food information to consumers, retained EU regulations assure a high level of consumer protection in relation to food information, so that consumers are not misled about their food, can make informed food choices and can use food safely. Previous EU exit legislation made amendments to make the retained food information legislation operable in the context of the UK no longer being an EU member state. This SI amends that legislation to ensure that it applies in a way that meets the conditions of the NI protocol.
Both instruments have received devolved administration consent and, as I have outlined, the regulations will ensure that the relevant rules operate effectively in domestic law. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for setting out the draft regulations so clearly. They are important, concerning as they do geographical indications and their protection, such as, as the Minister set out, Welsh lamb, Scotch whisky and Melton Mowbray pork pies. I have enjoyed them all in my time, and many other items governed by the regulations: cheeses, meats, wines and so on. They are clearly important both within the UK and in the broader EU.
The regulations are significant in terms of the protection that will be offered within Great Britain by the new system. As I understand it, and I think the Minister backed this up, Northern Ireland will be governed by the Northern Ireland protocol and will effectively still be treated as an EU member state, so is being treated in much the same way as it has been in the past. The new regulations will apply in the rest of the UK—in other words, in Great Britain.
The Minister referred to a simplified, streamlined procedure with one stage for domestic purposes after the end of the transition period—in other words, from 1 January next year. Can she confirm, because having read the regulations I am still not absolutely clear, that the new system falls into place immediately after the transition period ends? If that is the case, and there is an application for a new protection—a new geographical indication—early in the new year, I can see that our domestic procedure will be clear, but what will happen in the broader EU context? The Minister referred to existing EU geographical indications being recognised here, and I think she also said that our existing indications will be represented over there. Will that be true of new ones? I welcome that, if it is the case, but if there is a freezing of the current position and it does not apply to new ones, for how long are we assured that the existing position will be protected? Is that dependent on an agreement between now and the end of the transition period? Otherwise, what happens to existing protections? Will they apply for all time? That is very important for our market, and presumably for EU markets over here. So that needs to be cleared up by the Minister, and I would welcome her dealing with that point.
I welcome the tenor of the regulations. The Minister set out that the devolved Administrations have been involved closely in the process. That is to be welcomed. It has not always been the case, but they have been closely involved here, as indeed they should be. Geographical indications matter to all parts of the country, and if the whole country is working together as one on this, that is very much to be welcomed.
I do not think the Minister touched on this specifically, but I also welcome the fact that there seems to be a common-sense approach to using existing labels with existing logos, and so on, until they are exhausted or until the end of the 21-month breathing space. That sounds very sensible.
So I very much welcome the tenor of what we are seeking to do here, but I am concerned about what happens with regard to new geographical indications. I am also concerned about whether we have lasting protection within the EU for GB indications and vice versa. Those are my two real concerns, and I should be very grateful if my noble friend could deal with them when she comes to reply.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I start with the report on instruments of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Page 10 considers them in three paragraphs. I will home in on wines—I declare an interest: I have a small vineyard of my own of 100 vines—and spirits. On spirits, there are at the moment something over 100 different gins in the UK, and more are threatened. That is my first point. My second is that the English wine industry, viticulture, is growing very fast at the moment and there are new entrants all the time, which is very encouraging. Is the Minister confident that within the changes we are looking at today, new entrants can be fully briefed, will be welcome and will not be held up by the transitional changes to GI standards?
My second question concerns paragraph 34 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 33rd report. It says that this secondary legislation
“will enable the UK to meet its obligations under the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.”
However, as I understand it, Northern Ireland is using the protocol, so am I right in thinking that Northern Ireland is in the same boat, so to speak, as it is part of the UK but is somehow or other still stuck in the protocol? I am not entirely clear on how that works.
Thirdly, paragraph 35 of the same report says that, when the committee met, Defra confirmed—indeed, was confident—that total reciprocation
“was ‘the expectation and will be the default position’ at the end of the TP”.
Is that the situation at the moment?
Turning to the explanatory side of the Food and Feed Hygiene and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations, am I right in thinking that if there is no deal—this is in paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum—we will, in a sense, have to have another lot of SIs? That seems an important question to me.
Paragraph 2.5 of the same Explanatory Memorandum, headed “What will it do now?”, says:
“A number of individual changes are made to retained EU law … The changes are detailed at paragraph 7 and will enable retained EU law to be operable after EU Exit and provide a smooth transition for affected businesses. The changes introduced do not affect the essence of the legislation but ensure that it remains operable after exit.”
Is that mirrored in the Northern Ireland protocol?
Moving on, my noble friend asked about the 21-month period. My reading of paragraph 7.13 is that it starts on 1 January 2021. I, too, would like confirmation of that.
Paragraph 7.16 talks about the Crown dependencies. What is the situation with the overseas territories? The two often go in parallel. I declare an interest in that a member of my family works in one of the overseas territories, although he is not in food or anything like that. As the two often go in tandem, I wonder what the position is now that we have highlighted the Crown dependencies.
In paragraph 7.17, reference is made to Japan. We recently signed a new trade agreement with Japan, so am I to understand that the points made in paragraph 7.17 were covered in the trade agreement, or did not need to be; or are we not too sure whether they are in the trade agreement or not? That seems of some importance.
When we came to the consultation under point 10, there clearly were a number of issues raised, it says, although the number of respondents was not too great. I imagine that the trade associations were all consulted. Again, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the new trade body for English wine producers was consulted? If not, can we please make sure that it is in future?
It is not clear from paragraph 10.2 of the food and feed hygiene and safety Explanatory Memorandum what the issues were over which there was difficulty. There clearly must have been some because it says that there were “mixed comments”; that suggests that there were obviously some problems somewhere. It would be nice to know what they were.
Paragraph 12.2 talks about staffing. It says:
“It is estimated that one officer in each of these authorities … will need to undertake this task.”
It seems to me that the first things we should learn in life, as I am sure we do, is that people get ill—especially when we are in the middle of a pandemic—and have vacations. Presumably the one-person equivalent needs to be available in each local authority, which, in effect, means that there has to be two. That covers the Trading Standards officers, presumably. Here it also mentions the “Port Health Officer”.
Lastly, paragraph 13.2 is very important because, in the current market—I used to be involved in the food industry—there are a host of small, new microbusinesses being set up. The creativity of the British nation in lockdown has mainly been in the area of food and developing new food products in particular. I just hope that, when there is this
“high ratio of small and micro food businesses in the UK”,
somehow or other, Defra takes a particularly focused look at how it can make sure that these businesses are fully briefed on the changes that are coming.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, particularly because, in his celebration of new, small, independent producers of wines and spirits, he gave me the opportunity to note that Yorkshire has what is billed as its first single-malt whisky distillery—the Spirit of Yorkshire distillery—and that a number of new, small, independent businesses are creating interesting gins in Yorkshire. It is clearly important that these local businesses are able to flourish.
I thank the Minister for clearly outlining these regulations. I warn the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, since we have swapped places in the speakers’ list compared with the previous set of Sis, that I am planning to be quite brief and not take up my full seven minutes.
I want chiefly to concentrate on the agricultural products regulations—particularly the geographical indicators element, focusing, as I began, on the importance of small, local, independent producers. We want to see so much more food production and small-scale manufacturing in the UK. It is interesting that most of the examples that people have cited come from meat, dairy and alcohol; given that so many parts of the UK have brilliant conditions for growing fruit and vegetables, it would be nice to see much more celebration of—and encouragement of the celebration of—those products.
I join other noble Lords in asking what attempts will be made to promote this idea of geographical indicators and to promote the new system, which, we are told, and hope, will be simpler for people to access. We must make sure that it is indeed accessible by very small-scale local producers, who may be producing some exciting and, indeed, healthy new things—and, of course, who face such high levels of multinational competition, given the nature of our current food system, that they really need support to stand up against that.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, in celebrating the fact that working-level agreements have been agreed with the devolved Administrations. I really think that we can hope to see such an approach take hold across government much more broadly.
Finally, I want to comment on the second set of regulations that we are considering. On natural mineral waters, I suspect that I would be accused of venturing too far from the topic if I asked questions about the bottle deposit scheme, so I will not do that. However, I will note that this whole area of industry needs an enormous amount of work in terms of its environmental impact, particularly its unnecessary environmental impact. We are a very long way from any kind of circular economy set-up; of course, we have perfectly good, healthy tap water across the UK so this is an area where I hope we will see a lot more action from the Government very soon.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I congratulate the Minister, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, on her clear and comprehensive introduction of these two very complicated statutory instruments.
I acknowledge the importance of this field of GI foods, which is the subject of the first, rather large, instrument in this regard. Scotch whisky is I believe our greatest export, not just of food and drink but perhaps of any manufactured good. It is interesting to note that Scotch whisky, Scottish salmon, chocolate and cheese are the top four exports.
It is of note that, while our exports to non-EU countries have increased, they have not yet reached the volume or value of our exports in the last 10 years to the EU 27 countries. The figures for exports of food and drink in 2010 were £4.9 billion to the EU and £2.4 billion to non-EU countries. In 2019 they were £5.9 billion to EU 27 countries and £3.8 billion to non-EU countries. Therefore, Scottish salmon in particular is very important indeed. When I was the MP for a North Yorkshire seat, I had a little campaign to try to get GI for Yorkshire pudding—but it was very difficult to prove that it was actually geographic when it was made.
I will ask some questions. What will be the costs of what was recognised in the Commons essentially as a “policy change” that
“lays the framework for setting up our new … GI system”?—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 25/11/20; col. 6.]
Does my noble friend have any idea of what the cost to businesses will be? Where are we on the internal digital infrastructure necessary to administer all this, and does she expect that it will be in place by 1 January?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
On the question of costs, I understand that two processes will apply to producers who wish to sell both in the Great Britain market as well as in the European Union market. So what chance is there is that the two processes will be aligned, when that might be, and what will be the specific cost to producers of having to make two applications? As we will now have tribunal inquiry proceedings, do the Government envisage that there will be a run of clarifications required in this regard? Has there previously been such a procedure or are the Government introducing this for the first time?
I am slightly confused by the different transitional schemes. I welcome the fact there is a three-year transitional scheme for labelling, whereas there is only a six-month scheme in the second regulation for transition into the processes required under that one, and an 18-month transitional scheme is required for either logos or labelling. So it is a three-year period for domestic logos, a different one for labelling and a different one again in the third regulation. If I am confused, perhaps my noble friend might imagine that some of the producers might be equally confused.
I am slightly concerned that there is only an “expectation” of reciprocity. This was raised by my noble friend Lord Naseby and set out in the excellent 33rd report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, for which I am very grateful. Surely it must be something more than an expectation only of reciprocity, and should we not know by now whether there will be reciprocity even in the event of no deal? Like others, I would be extremely pleased to know the implications for the instrument before us today of a deal or no deal.
I welcome the two sets of regulations overall. I congratulate the department on putting together the extensive proposals in the first set, on agricultural products, food and drink—a massive piece of work. I would appreciate greater clarity on where we are running two processes. Where are we on the costs and on reciprocity? What are the potential burdens imposed under the two proposals? The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, asked about a consultation, but has an impact assessment been provided in the preparations?
This is an extremely important area of food production, one at which Great Britain excels in terms of exports of salmon, chocolate, cheese and other products. I wish my noble friend a fair wind but look forward to her replies to the questions I have raised, for which I thank her in advance.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, our Benches are content with these two statutory instruments and I thank the Minister and her civil servants for the meeting she arranged to brief us in advance.
As other noble Lords have said, these are important statutory instruments because geographical indication schemes are important to our food and drink industry, particularly our exports. My understanding is that the schemes represent around one quarter of all UK food and drink exports by value, which is approximately £6 billion in export value each year—a significant part of our food industry. Equally, getting these statutory instruments right is about guaranteeing the authenticity of the regulations and the trading of foods, providing reassurances for shoppers and protecting British producers from imitations.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about reciprocity and no deal. My understanding is that if there is no deal, we have no guarantee that UK GIs will be recognised, and companies will be subject to third-country status. That will amount to a lot of extra time for businesses large and small, because they will need to apply first to the UK scheme and then to the EU scheme, or vice versa in the case of Northern Ireland. Many businesses have spent many years developing their applications and securing their protections. We therefore need to get this sorted as soon as we can to ensure that those products can be retained on the shelves and we do not have to take them off-shelf because the packaging is no longer approved, and to allow those businesses to get back exporting as soon as possible.
There are also issues around the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol, in that Northern Ireland products with protections of geographical and traditional names will remain under the rules of the EU scheme. My understanding is that seven Irish products are currently granted protected geographical status under EU law, which means they will equally be obliged to maintain the EU logo, with its visual links to the flag of the European Union. That will apply to three all-Ireland spirits—Irish whiskey, Irish cream and Irish poteen. However, four exclusively Northern Ireland food products will be required to carry on using the logo, with its visual links to the flag of the European Union: Comber new potatoes—I apologise in advance if my pronunciation is wrong—Lough Neagh eels and pollan, and Armagh bramley apples.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned the issue of geographical indications being reserved matters. Clearly, there are sensitivities over our sense of place and identity and its visual representations. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for taking the time to spell out the close links and discussions with the devolved Administrations, which will continue throughout the scheme. I hope that will also include a review of the scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned the extra burdens on and costs for business. I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about that. Will she also say a few words about the estimated time the new approvals will take for businesses? I appreciate that there will now be one stage, as opposed to two, so I hope that the time between applying for and completing verification will be shorter. Is there a future time frame for businesses that wish to receive verification?
Finally, in addressing an issue that has not been touched on by others, I am keen to say something fresh about the budget implications for Defra. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, there is no impact assessment for this scheme because of the limited implications for business. However, this will be a significant area of spend for the department in terms of processing and verifying applications, maintaining the register, appeals, enforcement and communication—an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I appreciate that other departments are involved, especially HMRC with verifications and other departments with communications, but Defra will still need a significant amount. I understand that Defra asked for extra money in the departmental spending review to facilitate running these new schemes. Does the Minister know whether the requested extra money was approved?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the SIs this afternoon and for organising the helpful briefing beforehand. I also thank noble Lords for their contributions. I was particularly interested to hear about the vineyard of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. The Minister has clearly explained the amendments to EU legislation—the previously made exit SIs—needed to address the Northern Ireland protocol and fix any deficiencies in retained EU law.
The issues regarding Northern Ireland and the implications for trade with the Republic of Ireland are clearly complex. I would welcome an update on cross-border arrangements from the Minister. The regulations are complex but important, so we need to get them right. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke of the economic importance to our country of protected goods. We on these Benches support what the Government are doing by bringing in these regulations, but as noble Lords may expect, we have a few questions.
I turn to cost, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I understand that the regulations are not expected to have any significant financial implications, but there are likely to be some for industry and producers, particularly the specialist food producers and those with protected designations. What is the Government’s assessment of these extra costs and what costs are likely when applying for new geographical indicator status or when appealing to the First-tier Tribunal?
On the Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, it would be very helpful to understand more about the change outlined in paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum in relation to mutual recognition clauses on permitting the sale of natural mineral waters. England is going to make its own decisions about whether EU EEA waters for sale in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can also be sold here. Is that likely to be an essentially automatic process, or will specific criteria be applied? While it is important for consumers to have confidence in the products that they buy, we have a concern that we could end up unnecessarily double-checking or even triple-checking products that have already been certified in other jurisdictions.
On the Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, Labour has had questions over the status and future of GIs all the way back to the referendum. While having greater certainty is to be welcomed, it would have been helpful to have got to this stage much earlier in the Brexit process. Enabling new British protection of GIs is a welcome step, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, mentioned the importance of protections for new and existing GIs. But, as with lots of aspects of our future trade relationship with the EU, that only gets us so far, and we hope that a deal, if one is achieved, will include ongoing mutual recognition of GIs, as other noble Lords have mentioned. Is that the department’s aim? If it cannot be achieved, what is the likely impact on British producers that export products to the EU?
The SI also removes the requirement for EU GI logos to be on relevant product labels. If the UK and EU agree ongoing reciprocal arrangements, will this need to be revisited in future? In the Explanatory Memorandum, the wording in paragraph 2.14 speaks of removing the obligation to display an EU logo. This suggests that producers can choose to maintain it if they wish. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Also, many different logos are used on food these days. I am aware that the Government have had extensive consultation with industry and consumers regarding the use of the new logo, which I applaud, but logos can become very confusing for consumers. So what resource is being put into educating the public on what the new logo means?
Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum outlines the new appeals process, which allows an applicant for GI status to take their case to a First-tier Tribunal. Again, this has been subject to consultation, which we welcome, but we would be interested to know what information came out of that consultation. For example, did it give the department sufficient information to be able to estimate how many applications are likely to be made every year or how many appeals are likely to need to be heard? These may seem minor questions, but they have consequences for government in terms of the cost of legal representation.
I have one final point more generally about SIs. It is good to see some consolidation of previous SIs into the Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 in front of us today. However, we have heard so many SIs covering similar areas, some of them revisiting or building on previous amendments, so we have inevitably ended up with some inconsistencies. So I end by putting out a plea for greater consistency in future. I await the Minister’s response with interest.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. There were a large number of questions, and in the 10 minutes allotted I shall try to get through as many as I can. If I leave anybody out, we will have a good look at Hansard and I shall write with any other answers.
To prepare for the UK no longer operating under EU law, it is essential that we have the right legislation in place to administer the domestic GI scheme and to ensure that natural mineral waters and food labelling are appropriately regulated. I recognise the time pressures and constraints that we have been operating under. We are coming to these at a rather later stage in the process than would have been ideal, but I am confident that these SIs have been drafted to make the new system work.
A number of noble Lords asked whether there would be ongoing mutual recognition between UK and EU GIs. My noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Bourne, and others, asked that. For existing GIs, as registered under the EU schemes by 31 December, there will be continued recognition on both sides. That is, existing UK GIs will remain on the EU’s registers and existing EU GIs will be added to the UK’s GI registers. The situation regarding future GIs after the end of the transition period will be clear once trade negotiations with the EU have been completed. I am sure that that will come as no surprise to noble Lords. Producers in Northern Ireland will, of course, be able to apply directly to the EU schemes, as before.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, asked about World Trade Organization rules. This SI will provide the legal framework in England, Scotland and Wales to administer and enforce the GI schemes, also ensuring that the UK meets WTO trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, or TRIPS, agreement obligations. In Northern Ireland, the UK will meet TRIPS obligations through the EU GI schemes.
My noble friend Lord Naseby asked about territorial extent. The EU GI rules do not apply in UK overseas territories, so these are treated by the rules as third countries. If they would like their products to be protected in the UK, they would need to apply to the UK scheme, like other producer groups. My noble friend also asked about the Northern Ireland protocol, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Yes, retained EU law amended by this instrument is listed in Annexe 2 of the protocol, which means that Northern Ireland will continue to follow the unamended EU GI rules for the duration of the protocol. The territorial extent of retained EU law amended by the instrument and the GI schemes is, therefore, Great Britain and not the UK.
My noble friend Lord Naseby also asked whether anything had been done to minimise the extent to which Northern Ireland is treated differently. Yes, indeed, steps were taken to ensure this, given the UK Government’s Command Paper, The UK’s Approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol. This instrument allows Northern Ireland GI applicants to apply directly to the UK schemes without first needing protection under the EU schemes, which provide protection in Northern Ireland. We have also ensured that the new GI logos refer to UK protection, in the expectation that the protocol is a temporary arrangement.
I was asked by a number of noble Lords whether Defra had the right level of expertise and staffing. Yes, indeed, Defra will build on its existing experience of handling GI applications to provide a robust and transparent service to applicants. A team is already in place and dedicated to dealing with new applications from both the UK and overseas, with significant levels of preparatory work having taken place.
On the consultation and stakeholder engagement, Defra ran a public consultation in autumn 2018, which sought views on elements of new UK GI schemes, and on wider wine and spirit standards carried forward via this instrument. Beyond this we have undertaken targeted stakeholder engagement in 2019 and 2020 on the new GI scheme logos and handling appeals. This involved devolved Administrations, GI producers and trade bodies. Specific engagement on the replacement of the 2019 EU spirit drinks regulation, which this SI amends, has also taken place, primarily with the Scotch Whisky Association and the Wines and Spirit Trade Association. This SI was shared with selected stakeholders through the virtual reading room.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, about how the public will be educated about the new logos and what the schemes mean. The Government are developing a promotional strategy which will include raising awareness of the UK GI schemes and products among consumers, retailers and hospitality. We have recently published research that will help us to understand how to better promote GIs to consumers and to support promotional campaigns.
I note the interest of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in bottle deposit schemes, which is now on the record, but it does extend rather beyond this SI. She also asked about the environmental impacts of natural mineral water and the bottled water industry. The industry is making great strides to meet its obligations and the Government are working hard to ensure that the UK meets its environmental obligations.
I was asked by nearly all noble Lords about the cost of the new GI schemes, both for the Government and for business. We expect the cost to government of domestic applications to be in line with those to date, because this is not a new function. However, there will be modest extra costs for considering applications from third countries. But at this stage, of course, demand is very difficult to gauge. On communications, we will use existing channels as far as possible, working closely with the Department for International Trade and the Food is GREAT campaign to promote UK GIs internationally. We will also work collaboratively with producers, trade bodies and the retail sector where possible.
On the costs to business, there will be no fee for applying to the UK GI schemes or to submit an appeal under the First-tier Tribunal. GI producers will continue to bear any costs associated with the verification of their products, as they do under the current EU GI schemes. There will be no additional fees for verification. The cost to GI producers to adopt the new UK GI logos will be negligible. This is based on an analysis that a three-year adoption period will reduce the cost burden to businesses by around 95% compared with an immediate-change requirement.
I was asked by my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about the costs for adopting the new logos. I have answered that question.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked whether Defra had completed the necessary steps to introduce the new scheme. The short answer is, yes: the key components are this legislation, the GI registers, new logos and scheme guidance. All have been completed or are comfortably on schedule to be ready by 1 January 2021. Significant attention has also been given to mapping and testing the new processes, for example for new applications, by the staff who will be administering the schemes. This is in the final stages of being completed, to be ready for 1 January.
No debate on an SI would be complete without my noble friend Lady McIntosh asking about an impact assessment. I hate to disappoint her on this occasion, but an impact assessment was not needed. The purpose of the instrument is to maintain existing regulatory standards and therefore there is expected to be minimal impact on business. Changes that did have an impact, such as the adoption of new logos, do not meet the minimum threshold for an impact assessment.
My noble friend also asked about how a First-tier Tribunal was decided on as the body to hear GI appeals and how many appeals we could expect. The First-tier Tribunal was proposed in public consultation as being suitable to hear GI appeals. The majority of respondents supported the proposal. We expect very few appeals to arise. As well as the rate of GI applications generally being modest, the registration process already allows objections to the registration of a new GI to be raised before the Secretary of State makes a decision. This is intended to resolve disagreements within the normal application process, so First-tier Tribunals would be the exception. There will be no charge for making an appeal and the Government—through Defra—will pay the cost of hearing each case, which is estimated to be about £3,000.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked about the timescales for GI logo labelling. As I have said, this was agreed through public consultation. Lastly, the EU logo can continue to be used on GB products, but it will no longer be a requirement to do so. This provides producer choice, recognising that the GI was awarded under the EU processes, and the EU logo may carry more weight in the EU marketplace. The rules on using both the EU and UK logos have been communicated to GI producers, retailers and enforcement bodies. There is also written guidance to support this. For Northern Ireland agri-food GIs that are protected under the EU regime, it will be mandatory to use the EU logo.
I hope that noble Lords fully understand the need for these regulations. As I have outlined, they ensure that existing regimes for geographical indications, natural mineral waters and food labelling will continue to operate effectively from the end of the transition period. If there are any further questions that I have not answered, I will do so in writing. I commend these instruments to the Committee.
Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Grand Committee do consider the Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other surfaces they may touch. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same. The time limit is one hour.
European Union Withdrawal (Consequential Modifications) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have already undertaken extensive work to provide for a functioning domestic statute book by 31 December. Ahead of our exit from the EU on 31 January, the Government made a significant amount of exit-related legislation, including more than 630 statutory instruments. The Government continue to deliver the secondary legislation required to ensure a functioning statute book at the end of the transition period, so we are able to seize the opportunities of being an independent sovereign nation.
This instrument is a clear example of that. It makes various consequential amendments and repeals in respect of retained EU law, relevant separation agreement law and other EU-derived domestic legislation. I will explain this in further detail in a moment, but in short, it is highly technical and does not implement any new policy. It will ensure that the UK statute book works coherently and effectively following the end of the transition period.
The instrument was laid by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in exercise of temporary powers provided for in the EU withdrawal Act 2018 and the EU withdrawal agreement Act 2020. These powers allow Ministers to make provisions that they consider appropriate in consequence of those Acts. These are standard consequential powers that are commonplace in legislation. Such powers are inherently limited, their main expected use being for matters of a technical nature. This instrument is no exception.
The Government have already made several exit-related consequential statutory instruments in recent years, which were needed as a result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. However, since those instruments were made, we have left the EU with a deal—the withdrawal agreement—and entered the transition period. The statutory instrument we are discussing today includes provisions required as a result of the withdrawal agreement and the legislation that implemented it: the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
The main changes arising from the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 are: it introduces the transition period and delays the commencement of exit-related statutory instruments until the implementation period completion day; it provides that retained EU law comes into effect on IP completion day instead of exit day; and it establishes relevant separation agreement law. In the light of the introduction of relevant separation agreement law, the instrument clarifies how references in UK legislation to EU instruments are to be interpreted after IP completion day. This includes how references to EU instruments that form part of relevant separation agreement law should be read.
The amendments made to the 2018 Act by the implementation of the withdrawal agreement mean that it is possible for EU instruments to form part of retained EU law for some purposes and have effect as relevant separation agreement law for other purposes. This means that after IP completion day, references to EU instruments in domestic legislation can have a dual meaning. This instrument makes interpretation provisions to remove uncertainty about which version of an EU instrument applies: the retained version or the version applied by the withdrawal agreement. This ensures that the correct interpretation of the EU instrument applies following the end of the transition period and removes room for confusion or uncertainty.
At this point, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that, although the negative procedure could have been used for making this instrument under the consequential powers, we are following the affirmative procedure. This is to provide the opportunity for parliamentary debate.
To make these interpretive provisions, the instrument makes minor technical amendments to primary legislation, including the 2018 Act, the Interpretation Act 1978 and the latter’s devolved equivalents: the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019, the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 and the Interpretation and Legislation Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. Although the Government are not required to seek consent from, or consult with, the devolved Administrations on the provisions included in this instrument, there was extensive engagement at official level prior to the laying of this instrument to make sure that it worked effectively for the devolved legislatures. I note our gratitude to the devolved Administrations for their constructive collaboration on both this instrument and the wider body of readiness secondary legislation that is needed by the end of the year.
The instrument also makes technical repeals to redundant provisions within primary legislation arising from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, primarily due to the fact that it repealed the European Communities Act 1972. The 2018 Act provided for the repeal of the amended provisions of the 1972 Act, but not the amending provisions that lie behind them. As a consequence of those repeals, the amending provisions are redundant. Without these regulations, this legislation would continue to sit meaninglessly on our statute book; repealing it ensures that the statute book remains clear and effective.
As well as repealing redundant legislation, this instrument also makes consequential amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Modifications and Repeals and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to reflect the fact that they come into effect on IP completion day rather than exit day, and ensure that they operate effectively in the light of this.
I hope that noble Lords therefore agree that these draft regulations perform a small but worthwhile role in our preparations for the end of the transition period and demonstrate the Government’s commitment to ensuring certainty and clarity in the UK’s statute book. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I want to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for introducing the regulations before us and for the fact that they follow the affirmative procedure, enabling us to have a small debate on them.
In its 31st report, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee devoted just one paragraph to these regulations:
“This is an important technical instrument, necessary to ensure that the statute book operates correctly after Implementation Day.”
It concludes:
“The instrument provides a general gloss to ensure that the correct interpretation of any EU instrument applies. Cabinet Office states that statutory instruments being prepared by other departments in order to implement the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Northern Ireland Protocol, are relying on these glosses.”
I am somewhat confused as to what “gloss” means. To me, if you put a gloss on something, it potentially puts a spin on it. I could not find in the document that this was a term my noble friend’s department used—probably for a very good reason. I would be interested to know what gloss he puts on that interpretation in the report.
Obviously, we discussed these issues at some length during the passage of the two Acts to which my noble friend referred, and the instrument today helpfully sets out the sources of retained European law. One is missing, namely case law from the European Court of Justice, presumably up to the end of January this year but potentially up to the end of December this year. It is not clear to what extent we will have any regard to EU case law as agreed by the European Court of Justice. Obviously, we will not refer cases, because the Government have been very clear about that in the past. However, there may well be an expectation among some companies that feel that they are affected by this statutory instrument that they would have the right to rely on that case law in a UK court. I would be interested to know whether that is true in my noble friend’s view when he comes to sum up.
Another category of EU law on which I questioned my noble friend and his colleagues during the passage of those two Acts, and which particularly interests me, relates to the environment and agriculture generally, where these instruments of EU law were agreed but were not implemented by the end of 31 January 2020. To be honest, I do not have a clue whether they are ambulatory or non-ambulatory, but I would be very interested to know what decisions have been taken in regard to the applications of those instruments, whether they will be applicable to citizens and companies in this country and whether they can rely on them going forward.
Paragraph 2.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, on page 2, helpfully says:
“The interpretation legislation amended by this instrument is not EU law; it is domestic legislation, which is being updated in consequence of”
the two Acts to which my noble friend referred, as he said. Paragraph 6.4 on page 4 sets out retained EU law without, as I say, including what I would consider to be EU law, namely the case law that has been decided during the course of this year. Paragraph 6.7 on page 4 states that the two Acts
“provide temporary powers to make provisions that Ministers consider appropriate in consequence of those Acts.”
In that regard, does my noble friend expect to come back at a future date to repeal other provisions of EU law, if he and his department intend to keep this under review? Paragraph 7.4 states:
“Where there is a dual meaning, the interpretive provision applicable to references to EU legislation that have effect as relevant separation agreement law will apply to the extent that the EU legislation takes effect as relevant separation agreement law.”
Paragraph 7.5 continues:
“These interpretive provisions are needed to ensure that the legislative framework for the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland operates effectively.”
Paragraph 7.7 states that Regulation 3 makes amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
“to provide how existing ambulatory references to EU instruments that will have effect as relevant separation agreement law are to be interpreted after IP Completion Day. Ambulatory references are references to EU instruments that automatically update when the EU instrument is updated.”
I do not intend to use the full time that has been generously allocated to me, but I will end on a general question. With all interpretations of EU law that is now deemed to be retained EU law for UK purposes, in the event of a disagreement, who will interpret the provisions? Will it be the Minister’s department that is the ultimate arbiter, or will recourse to the courts be required? I understand that, probably still, one potential niggle that might be delaying the conclusion of a deal with the EU 27 this week—perhaps he could comment on this—is what the dispute resolution mechanism will be. Is there any update in that regard?
With those few words, I welcome this opportunity to consider the instrument that the Minister was kind enough to set out this afternoon.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, is having technical difficulties. In the circumstances, we will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
In 32 days’ time, the whole body of law concerning our relationship with the European Union, developed over 48 years, will disappear, and we shall be entering new legal territory. Retained European law will be added to our domestic law—a whole body emanating from the directives and regulations that we have hitherto followed through our membership of the European Union. This was the effect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As I understand it, if we wish in future to depart from or change anything in retained EU law, we will do it by the normal processes of Westminster legislation. Ambulatory provisions in European regulations, which provided for an automatic update in accordance with changes in European law, will cease.
All that was difficult enough, but understandable. However, as a result of the withdrawal agreement that was finally concluded earlier this year, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 was taken through Parliament. One purpose of that Act was to replace references to exit day with “IP completion day”; the changes made by the 2018 Act were, therefore, pushed back from exit day—the day when we left the European Union, at the end of last January—to 1 January next.
Another purpose of the 2020 Act was to fulfil the promise made in the Conservative 2019 manifesto that all British courts, down to and including magistrates’ courts, could throw off the burden of EU case law and principles, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice. The thinking behind that was not to promote the clarity and stability of our domestic law: it was, as I said in Grand Committee last week, the expression of the Conservative Party’s allergy to the European Court of Justice—an itch which has to be scratched.
As the 2020 Act required, there was extensive consultation of 73 bodies, encompassing the whole legal and judicial community. The manifesto commitment had by this time been watered down to a proposal that only the courts at Court of Appeal level should be able to depart from the precedents set in Europe. Only 20% of the consultees were in favour of this proposal, as we discussed last week; 80% were either wholly against it or did not support it. The Minister will no doubt be interested to hear that the noble and learned Lord, the Advocate-General for Scotland, in introducing the rejected proposals last week, nevertheless told us that we could be reassured by the fact that consultation had taken place. He did not actually mention the result of the consultation. Well, there is no such problem here, as there has been not the slightest consultation over these regulations—yet they, too, are supposed to introduce sweetness and light.
Unfortunately, the 2020 Act introduced the new concept of the “relevant separation agreement law”, which provides that any question as to the validity, meaning or effect of any “relevant separation agreement law” is to be decided in accordance with the withdrawal agreement and the like agreements and is to be consistent with various articles of the withdrawal agreement—and not just the current articles that are in issue, because the definition of “relevant separation agreement law” is widened by a final coda saying
“as that body of law is added to or otherwise modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time”.
Any lawyer trying to advise a business client as to his position with regard to, say, contractual or intellectual property rights already has a difficult task. Any individual embarking on litigation to sort out a dispute faces extensive legal costs and untold worry.
However, that is not the end under these regulations. Paragraph 6.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum tells us that the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and the amendments made to that Act by the 2020 Act
“mean that it is possible for EU instruments to form part of retained EU law for some purposes and have effect as relevant separation agreement law for other purposes. This means that after IP Completion Day”—
in 32 days’ time—
“references to EU instruments in domestic legislation can have a dual meaning. For example, referring to the original version of the EU instrument that has effect as relevant separation agreement law for some purposes and referring to the domesticated version of the EU instrument that forms part of RDEUL for other purposes.”
So, in these regulations we are now importing into our domestic law retained EU law as amended by relevant separation agreement law, and any future amendment of it, as interpreted in the articles of the withdrawal agreements—and references to EU instruments in domestic law can have a dual meaning. Incidentally, the Northern Ireland protocol is part of the withdrawal agreement and is already under fire, with power to make regulations to break the law included in the UKIM Bill as drafted. We will have to see how that turns out.
For the sake of the sanity of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, will the Minister kindly tell us how this dual meaning is supposed to take effect? What exactly are the separate dual meanings and for what purposes will one meaning be applicable in relevant separation agreement law and one in the domesticated version that is to form part of the retained domestic EU law? I cannot think of any legislation with a dual meaning for the same wording in the same provision which is to be interpreted differently in different legal contexts. I am willing to be enlightened.
I cannot expect the Minister to sort out this mess at the Dispatch Box, but I would be grateful if a memorandum could be prepared and published to make the position clear for lawyers advising their clients and judges seeking to interpret already complicated provisions of law. In any sensible legislative body, this instrument would be withdrawn and reformulated. Unhappily, so ineffective and weak are the procedures of the United Kingdom Parliament in scrutinising secondary legislation—as we are supposed to be doing now—that this instrument will go through in its present form. God help those who have to interpret it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call again the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, in the hope that we shall be able to hear him this time.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this SI has been prepared by the Cabinet Office. Its purpose is to ensure that the UK statute book works correctly and effectively following the end of the transition period. The UK left the EU on 21 January 2020, following which the supremacy of EU law over UK law came to an end. The EUWA has achieved this legal severance through the repeal of the ECA on exit day. The withdrawal agreement agreed between the UK and the EU came into force on exit day.
The withdrawal agreement aims to ensure the UK’s orderly withdrawal from the EU. The EUWA has implemented the withdrawal agreement and provides the vehicle for the Government to give effect to the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement. The UK and the EU agreed in the withdrawal agreement that the UK’s exit from the EU would be followed by a time-limited transition period. That period started on exit day and ends on 31 December 2020.
Although the ECA was repealed on exit day, certain parts of it are to be kept in force by the EUWA, and EU law continues to apply during the transition period under the terms set out in the withdrawal agreement. This SI makes various consequential amendments and repeals in respect of retained EU law and the relevant separation agreement, laws and other EU-derived domestic legislation. This ensures that the UK statute book will operate effectively and coherently in relation to EU-derived domestic legislation and removes from the statute book domestic legislation that has been made redundant as a result of the EUWA.
Finally, this SI does not apply to activities undertaken by small businesses. Can the Minister give some estimate of the cost of this SI?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on a somewhat technical range of issues. I am not going to pretend that I understand all of them, but a particularly interesting one was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, concerning the word “gloss”. I have seen the word used in the explanatory notes to a number of other orders and I assumed that it was a legal term. However, if the noble Baroness, who is legally trained, does not know the answer, it clearly is not in common legal use. As the Minister has now had time to find out about it, perhaps he could enlighten us.
Part of all this work arises from the completely misplaced idea that a system of law-making that we have had for almost half a century can suddenly be replaced by a domestic equivalent, with none of the time, debate, consultation and thought which normally goes into it. In fact, the Minister himself gave it away when he said that we have already had 650 SIs. In a sense, what we are doing is concertinaing into a couple of years what took almost 50 years to develop across the EU.
This also arises in part from the Government’s early denial that any implementation period would be needed. It was the Labour Party that first said we would need something like that, and to begin with there was resistance. I am grateful that the Government understood at the time that a period of adjustment was needed. The problem I have with “implementation”—or “IP completion date”, as it now is—is that it is still the wrong term. We are not implementing anything because we do not have a deal yet. We are actually still at the end of leaving: we are not implementing new rules because we do not know what the new arrangement is yet. It may be a question of semantics, but the word “implementation” is a bit odd and “transition” would be better. We are a month away from the end of the transition and we still have to sort out, as this provision is, the end of the withdrawal legislation.
As we have heard, this SI incorporates retained direct EU legislation or the relevant separation agreements into the Interpretation Act 1978 and its equivalent in the devolved Authorities. As the Minister said, it amends the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 and the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019. I think the Minister said that each of the devolved Authorities was “fully engaged” in the preparation of the regulations. He did not say whether they were content with them. Will he confirm that they were not only involved but happy that we are proceeding with the regulations today?
I am sure that the answer is yes, but will he also let us know whether the Law Society—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the answer to this question is yes, but can the Minister confirm that, in addition to the devolved authorities, organisations such as the Law Society and the Bar Council, and European law specialists in particular, have been consulted in the preparation of these regulations?
There is also the issue of using secondary legislation to amend primary legislation: not just the Interpretation Act 1978 but also parts of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This is the issue the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised, in a way. Can the Minister outline what assessment has been made of the effect on accountability and scrutiny of amending the withdrawal agreement by statutory instrument? Is he really content that that is a good way to proceed? I think he knows all the sensitives in the House about secondary legislation, so he will understand the question.
The Minister will also know of the concerns, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, within and beyond the legal sector about the uncertainty that clients, lawyers and courts will face after January. One example is that, without the Lugano framework, we will revert to the national laws of each individual country to decide which court has jurisdiction over a legal issue and whether a judgment will be enforced. This is obviously key in family, bankruptcy, companies and transport law, and no doubt much more besides. Can the Minister update the Committee—if not now, perhaps he will write—on this and similar issues that the legal profession and its clients will face from January? In particular, can he update us on the Lugano framework? I have rather lost track of where we are on signing up to that; an update would be useful.
Just from looking at these regulations, it seems that the complexity of statutory instruments such as this will increase legal uncertainty. Perhaps the Minister could provide some assurance that, even if I do not understand every technical word, every lawyer in the land will.
Lord True (Con)
Well, my Lords, I am loath to speak for any lawyer, let alone every lawyer in the land. I hope this SI proves to be the clarifying instrument that we hope it is.
I was asked a number of questions, not all of which, as was gracefully conceded, may be answerable on the spot. Regarding the last question, about the Lugano framework, I am certainly not advised on that currently and will have to respond.
On the question of “gloss”, it is a term used frequently by parliamentary counsel meaning “a modification to how legislation is read”. In terms of the gloss as used in the report referred to, the interpretive glosses provided by this instrument provide general interpretive rules for how cross-references to EU instruments should be read. This means that interpretive provision does not need to be provided in other legislation because it is already provided by these glosses and so ensures consistency.
I was asked whether the SI has financial implications. It does not.
I was asked about the consequence of importing EU retained law into domestic law. As a result of the introduction of relevant separation agreement law, interpretive provision needs to be made so that it is clear how references to EU instruments that form part of relevant separation agreement law are to be read. Essentially, references to EU instruments that form part of relevant separation agreement law are to be read as they are applied by the withdrawal agreement. Interpretive provision for retained EU law has already been provided. This SI makes amendments to these provisions to ensure that the interpretive provisions for relevant separation agreement law and retained EU law work together. I hope that that answers the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. If not, I will ask my officials to see whether any further information needs to be added.
I was asked about consultation. Obviously, I said in my opening speech that it is an accepted principle in terms of these consequential amendments that it is possible for secondary legislation to amend primary legislation in a number of confined technical cases such as this. I do not have the full details on consultation with all the devolved Administrations although I am assured that they took place.
Obviously, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 gives the United Kingdom Government the power to make statutory changes to correct deficiencies in the statute book that arise as a result of the UK leaving the EU. Ministers can use those powers in relation to devolved matters but have committed not to do so normally without the agreement of the relevant DAs. These commitments do not extend to all powers in the EUWA and the withdrawal agreement Act. There are the specific powers that I have just referred to, under which secondary legislation can be made in devolved areas without consent from or consulting with DA Ministers where those changes are technical in nature.
However, in relation, for example, to the case of Wales and in fact more generally, I understand that legal officials in my department consulted with the devolved authorities’ lawyers and their respective parliamentary counsel throughout the drafting process. Initial correspondence was sent on 6 August, with the first draft of the statutory instruments shared on 19 August, and the final draft of the SI takes into account the devolved authorities’ comments and drafting suggestions. Policy officials shared details of the statutory instrument on 25 September, with a final draft of the SI and Explanatory Memorandum shared on 30 September. Therefore that process of engagement has gone on for some time.
I was asked—although this is slightly wide of the statutory instrument—about the current state of negotiations. Intensive negotiations with the EU are ongoing this week. They have resumed in person, and intensive negotiations are taking place in person in London as well as virtually via Webex. The teams are continuing to work very hard and are committed to meeting on a daily basis.
The familiar difficult issues remain. Although there has been some progress across many areas, wide divergences remain on fisheries and the level playing field. We will not abandon our core principles to reach a deal. While an agreement is preferable, we are prepared to leave on Australia-style terms if we cannot find suitable compromises. Either way, as the Prime Minister has made clear, people and businesses must prepare for the changes coming on 31 December, most of which will happen whether there is a deal or not. Obviously, this SI is part of the preparations for the transition.
I was asked about recourse to the courts in the event of any disagreements in relation to EU law and who is arbiter. At the end of the transition period, it is true that there may be a number of cases related to infringements that have not yet been resolved. Infringements arising during the transition period may be brought before the CJEU for up to four years following the end of the transition period.
I was asked whether we would return in future to repeal further legislation under the EU withdrawal legislation. It is an optimistic statement to have to make, and I shall be guarded in making it. I simply say to your Lordships and advise that we are confident, currently, that all critical legislation will be in force by the end of the transition period, ensuring that the statute book is functional.
A couple of other points were made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I believe that I picked up most of her points; if not, we will look and see whether we can make good. Governments always like to try to make good, hence this statutory instrument before your Lordships.
I shall reply outside on the Lugano framework, as I have undertaken. I am not going to follow further down the line of political remarks. It is true that the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, do not care for the idea of a lasting role for the European Court of Justice, which was confirmed by the British people in both the referendum and the election. Here we are dealing with important, practical and technical legislation, and I am grateful for all the extreme interest in the matter and will endeavour to ensure that any unanswered questions are answered.
With that, I hope that this instrument can be approved so that we can ensure that the statute book works coherently and effectively following the end of the transition period.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Definition of Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the statutory instrument that we are discussing concerns the establishment of a definition of “qualifying Northern Ireland goods”, or QNIGs, as it says here in brackets; people come up with an acronym for everything these days. That definition is established for the purposes of delivering unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods moving to the rest of the UK market from the end of the transition period. The statutory instrument should be seen in its wider context of this Government’s clear commitment to deliver unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the rest of the UK market, and to guarantee this in legislation by the end of this year. This commitment was made in both the 2019 Conservative manifesto and the New Decade, New Approach deal, which restored power-sharing in Northern Ireland. This instrument is fundamental to delivering on that commitment.
Unfettered access is based on several fundamental tenets: first, that there will be no customs and regulatory checks and processes for qualifying Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain; secondly, that there will be no additional authorisations or approvals required for placing those goods on the market in the rest of the UK; and, finally, that those goods can continue to be sold throughout the UK market.
We intend for the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to put the building blocks in place for unfettered access for the long term. The measures that we propose in that Bill will enshrine in primary legislation that qualifying Northern Ireland goods will benefit from mutual recognition—enabling goods to continue to be placed on the whole UK market, even where the protocol applies different rules in Northern Ireland—and prohibit new checks and controls as goods move from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom.
These are significant and robust protections. They will be subject only to the most limited possible exceptions, such as to ensure that the UK can comply with its international obligations, for example regarding endangered species movements. Although this House regrettably removed those important protections in its consideration of the Bill in Committee, the Government will ensure that these measures are reinserted to provide the certainty that the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland businesses have called for.
All these elements flow from there being a definition in law of what are the qualifying Northern Ireland goods that benefit from unfettered access. This is the purpose of this statutory instrument.
It is important to be clear that the policy of unfettered access will be given effect in two phases. The first phase is focused on avoiding disruption and maintaining continuity for the first half of next year, in line with the broader approach that we are taking for GB-EU movements. That is what this instrument is concerned with. In order to avoid any disruption, it takes a necessarily broad-based approach, outlining that goods will qualify where they are in free circulation in Northern Ireland, on the basis that they are not under customs supervision—excepting any supervision arising from the good being taken out of Northern Ireland or the EU—and where they are a good that has undergone processing operations in Northern Ireland under the inward processing procedure and incorporates inputs only from Great Britain, or was in free circulation in Northern Ireland.
Those are some quite technical descriptions, but in practice they will mean no change to how Northern Ireland businesses move goods directly to the rest of the UK from 1 January 2021 compared with now. This is an important first step to make sure that Northern Ireland traders can continue to move their goods in an unfettered way from the end of the transition period, meeting the Government’s clear commitment under the New Decade, New Approach deal. Although this first phase will be comparatively brief, it is none the less important to guard against the possibility that its provisions are abused. That is why the phase one approach will be accompanied by anti-avoidance measures to be contained in legislation to be brought forward by colleagues in the Treasury in due course to enable us to take action in those cases.
That will be the first phase of the regime. We recognise that this is only a bridge to the more durable and permanent arrangements in phase two, which will focus the benefits of unfettered access solely and exclusively on Northern Ireland businesses. This will ensure that they have a competitive advantage over other traders on the island of Ireland and will ensure that goods moving from Ireland or the EU are subject to full third-country checks and controls. That regime, which will take effect in the course of 2021, is being finalised at pace, working with Northern Ireland business and the Northern Ireland Executive. We are also working with the devolved Administrations more broadly on its operational implications. We will provide further details on the specific approach and its timing as soon as possible. In the meantime, we consider that it is right to proceed in a pragmatic way that maintains continuity for business, which our phased approach would do. Should both Houses approve this instrument, it will enable us to bring forward clear guidance for businesses to ensure that they are ready for the end of the transition period.
I would again like to assure Members of the Committee that this instrument is part of our clear and unequivocal commitment to unfettered access, ensuring that businesses can continue to trade as they do now and protecting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. Those are and will remain our overriding priorities as we take forward the important work here in the weeks ahead. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations and his customary professionalism and courtesy, although I am afraid that he rather glossed over, in the inimitable way of Ministers during this chaotic last stage of the Brexit saga, many of the things involved. Although he reaffirmed the UK Government’s promise of unfettered access into Great Britain for Northern Ireland goods, the question arises: what exactly are Northern Ireland goods?
The UK Government needed to define what are those Northern Ireland goods that qualify for unfettered access, but this has not been straightforward, given that some goods leaving Northern Ireland for Great Britain are the product of a complex process of production that includes components from elsewhere, especially in the Republic of Ireland. The picture is especially complicated for agri-food. For example, if a pig was born in the Republic of Ireland, slaughtered in Northern Ireland, processed into sausage in the Republic of Ireland and packaged in Northern Ireland, is that a Northern Ireland or a Republic of Ireland sausage?
As I understand it, the Government have taken all sorts of advice from businesses, but it became complicated, because it is so different for different industries and sectors. For instance, some have no contact with the Republic of Ireland and, therefore, the European Union, while others are fully integrated with both. If a good is defined as a Northern Ireland good but has very little contact with Northern Ireland—for example, it is just packaged there—there is a risk that Northern Ireland could become a back door into Great Britain, especially in a no-deal scenario, to avoid tariffs. That would undermine genuinely local Northern Ireland goods.
The Government did not have time fully to address the complexity of all this, so I am afraid that the statutory instrument is just a sticking plaster for phase 1, as they are calling it, and as the Minister virtually said. We are told to expect much more detail, as he said, and nuance in phase 2, which we are all promised will come next year. The problem is that the sticking plaster prioritises flow over control; that is to say, it basically defines everything in free circulation or moving around Northern Ireland as a Northern Ireland good. That could potentially include Irish and EU goods. The upside is that it avoids the need for new checks and procedures to distinguish between Northern Ireland and other goods leaving Northern Ireland for Great Britain come 1 January. The downside is that, especially if there is no deal, although conceivably even if there is a thin deal, it shares an advantage given to Northern Ireland goods, which is unfettered access into Great Britain, with those from outside Northern Ireland. Again, that is particularly bad in the event of no deal, given that Northern Ireland goods should not face tariffs on entry to Great Britain but Republic of Ireland goods would.
In other words, this is all a real dog’s breakfast, but one with potentially costly and important consequences for Northern Ireland’s economy and businesses, and another case of how Northern Ireland always seems to end up second best over the Government’s hard Brexit dogmatism.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, this regulation is designed to guarantee unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain. I welcome what Her Majesty’s Government have said about guaranteeing those commitments in legislation. As the Minister pointed out, it is in the New Decade, New Approach document, which was agreed by all the parties in Northern Ireland; they all signed up to that document. It was also in the December 2017 joint European Union- United Kingdom document, which at paragraph 50 said:
“In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.”
That paragraph was inserted after my party negotiated with Theresa May during that fateful week. We were always conscious of the need to ensure that protection was in place.
It is always a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hain. He knows a lot about Northern Ireland, and he talked about a dog’s breakfast. Part of the problem that we are facing with Northern Ireland goods and trade with the rest of the United Kingdom is because some people prioritised trade with the Irish Republic and European Union above the biggest market of Great Britain. By far and away the biggest market for Northern Ireland is trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. At the time when we were pointing out all those problems over the past couple of years, people did not seem to regard those issues; instead, they talked about all sorts of invented issues about problems north-south, when Simon Coveney, the Foreign Minister, Michel Barnier, and everyone else, including all the parties in Northern Ireland, guaranteed that there would never be any checks on trade north-south, in any circumstances. That is something that the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic said just the other day.
I will bring the Minister on to a couple of questions that I have about this approach. As he said, this is phase 1 of the issue of how we grapple with defining what is a Northern Ireland good for the purposes of unfettered access. When exactly will we have the longer-term definition? We were told that it would be at some point during the course of 2021, but can the Minister be more precise about that? Can he also undertake that these issues will be sorted out for Northern Ireland at the same time as they are for general UK-EU trade? There is that aspect to it as well—the movement of goods between the European Union and the rest of the United Kingdom. Our view must be that it should all be done at the one time.
On the current or phase 1 definition, under these regulations, how will the Government ensure that Northern Ireland products move through ports in the Irish Republic to Great Britain? Some 20% of our trade with Great Britain goes through the Irish Republic. That needs to be clarified. The agri-food sector has been mentioned, and it is a very important part of our economy. There is concern among producers in Northern Ireland in that sector that this very wide definition, albeit temporary, could lead to goods from the Republic of Ireland being moved through Northern Ireland to Great Britain, which would potentially create great problems in terms of reputational damage for the Northern Ireland agri-food industry.
That brings us on to the issue of anti-avoidance measures, which the Minister mentioned and which are very important. We are told that they will be produced, I think he said, “in due course”. However, we are now almost at the end of 2020. The new definition for unfettered access for qualifying goods comes in on 1 January and we have yet to see the anti-avoidance measures. We were promised that this would be in place before the end of December. We need to see those very soon so that we can examine them and ensure that only Northern Ireland goods benefit from unfettered access. As has been said, it would be entirely wrong if, along with the other disadvantages that Northern Ireland may now face as a result of the protocol, this advantage of unfettered access was extended to competitors in the Irish Republic or elsewhere in the European Union, who would be only too willing to take advantage. The anti-avoidance measures must be effective, they must work, and the Government must ensure that proper enforcement measures are in place. I would like to know what mechanisms HMRC will have in place to find out who is trying to benefit and what steps and powers it will have.
Clear guidance then needs to be given to Northern Ireland businesses so that they are clear about what products qualify and there is no ambiguity. There needs to be clear messaging to producers in the rest of the United Kingdom about the right of unfettered access for goods coming from Northern Ireland. I have already heard of competitors of businesses in Northern Ireland, in the agri-food sector in particular, lobbying people in Great Britain to warn them off Northern Ireland produce, saying, “This could be contaminated with produce coming from outside and it may not be lawful”. There needs to be clear guidance from the Government in Great Britain on this as well. Clear guidance also needs to be given to Irish businesses to the effect that if there is an attempt to use Northern Ireland as some kind of back-door mechanism to the Great Britain market, that will lead to severe consequences and action will be taken, as opposed to one line in the Finance Act setting out how that is unlawful but without any means of enforcing it.
The idea behind these regulations is welcome in principle, but there are questions that need to be answered about goods going through Irish Republic ports that will also benefit from unfettered access, and questions about the anti-avoidance measures. We are now very late in the day in seeing them, and I would welcome more detail being spelled out on when they will come and how effective they will be at policing these regulations.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the explanation of these stage one, stop-gap regulations. From my perspective, I support unfettered access for businesses from Northern Ireland to Britain. I also do not want any borders, whether in the Irish Sea or in the island of Ireland, because they would act as impediments to business and the free flow of people and would have—shall we say?—the capacity to undermine our very delicate political relationships and infrastructure. We must be careful about that.
I see the regulations in the context of a Brexit I did not want to happen, but it is here. It creates barriers and impediments to political, economic and social development at a time when businesses are having to deal with the difficulties and challenges presented by Covid. They need assistance and a streamlined system that does not involve any extra costs or burdens, either administrative or financial, when they are transporting goods to Britain, either via Northern Ireland ports or from ports in the Republic of Ireland. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I would like the situation of Northern Ireland products and produce imported or exported to Britain via ports in the Republic of Ireland to be clarified.
Notwithstanding all that, there are several questions I would like to ask the Minister about the complexity of these regulations. The Minister and the Explanatory Memorandum indicate that further legislation will be produced in this area and that this is simply a temporary, stop-gap measure. He referred to the regulations, which will last about six months, as avoiding disruption. What will be the nature of the new regulations and when are they likely to be brought to the House for discussion and affirmation? There are suggestions that this legislation is a bridge to a longer-lasting regime— something that the Secretary of State said in the other place. What is that longer-lasting regime? What will be the content, nature and scope of that legislation?
Suggestions have also been made that work is ongoing with the devolved Administrations—I think the Minister referred to that. What is the nature of that work? What discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive and specific Ministers dealing with economy, finance and the First and Deputy First Ministers? Has the Minister for Infrastructure been involved in such discussions, as having responsibility for transportation? If so, what was the outcome of those discussions, or have they mainly been at official level? Is the Northern Ireland Executive expected to bring forward subsequent legislation in relation to this issue?
I come to the thorny issue of agri-foods, already mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Dodds. How will standards of agri-food products emanating from Northern Ireland be dealt with, as they will still have to comply with EU standards? Will there be costs and administrative burdens involved? If they are unfettered, surely there should be no costs.
I come to the issue of processing, the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. What are Northern Ireland processed goods? Can the Minister provide us with a definition? The dairy industry is largely all-island in Ireland. If milk is produced in the Republic of Ireland and processed in Northern Ireland for cheese and other dairy products, does the definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods apply to such products, in the light of the protocol and agri-food requirements? In fact, the dairy industry is largely owned by companies based and headquartered in the Republic of Ireland.
Penny Mordaunt said in the other place that these regulations were
“no more than a stopgap to a longer lasting regime”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 10/11/20; col. 7.]
which would be accompanied by further anti-avoidance measures that would be introduced in a timely manner. What is the nature of those anti-avoidance measures? Will they deal with the issues of competition and tax?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I would like to know what the role of HMRC is in such transactions. Can the Minister provide an update on the UK-EU discussions that are seeking to find solutions to or flexibilities over the types of goods that can come into Northern Ireland from Britain for supermarkets? I appreciate that that is not in the remit of these regulations but the Minister will recall that this matter bedevils suppliers in Northern Ireland, particularly supermarkets. Perhaps this issue would be better dealt with at the supermarket level rather than by the JMC, but it would be good to have an update because the agri-food industry and our general retail businesses require certainty and it is only a few weeks until the end of the transition period.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful explanation of the SI. It seems that we get a new SI on Northern Ireland practically every day, appearing in its design to take into account the withdrawal agreement and the protocol. I must remind noble Lords that nobody in Northern Ireland consented to the protocol, which was written with the aim of stopping any kind of trade border between part of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and putting in instead a trade border between one part of the United Kingdom and another, in the Irish Sea.
Words almost fail me sometimes as to how, given that the referendum vote was that the UK as a whole should leave the European Union, our Government allowed themselves to be taken in by an Irish nationalist lobby—and others—who used and distorted the Belfast agreement as their weapon to get their way on this. However, I accept that, now that some of the ramifications of the protocol are clear, the Government are trying to alleviate some of the major problems as much as they can. The internal market Bill is a step forward, of course; it is a pity that your Lordships, perhaps reluctantly, removed some of the clauses that absolutely would have ensured unfettered access for business in Northern Ireland.
This statutory instrument seeking to define qualifying Northern Ireland goods needs to be seen in the context of that internal market Bill. I very much agree with a number of the questions already asked by noble Lords and look forward to the answers, but can I ask the Minister a few simple ones? Indeed, he will probably think that they are very simple. Can he define again the limited exceptions for very high-risk goods? Who will decide what is a high risk? What other international obligations, apart from the much-mentioned movement of endangered species, are covered?
Repeated assurance has been given. I quote Command Paper 226:
“Trade going from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK: this should take place as it does now. There should be no additional process or paperwork and there will be no restrictions on Northern Ireland goods arriving in the rest of the UK”.
However, it is now clear that companies in Northern Ireland will need to complete new paperwork and comply with new reporting requirements, which will increase costs and represents a significant departure from how companies trade at the moment.
Can the Minister say how long he thinks a lorry has to wait at Larne at the moment before it can get on board to go to Scotland and how long he estimates it will take after 1 January? Why are we building such expensive structures at Larne and other ports if, as has been said, there is to be little paperwork and new burdens to take on? While of course much of the extra burden on business will be covered by government money that has been allocated, it is taxpayers’ money, the people’s money. People who voted to leave the EU did not expect their money to be spent on trying to keep part of the United Kingdom in the EU, leaving in name only.
Under the protocol, the VAT rules of the EU will still apply. For example, if the UK Government decide, as many of us would like them to, to reduce passenger duty, can the Minister assure me that no one can stop that being applied in Northern Ireland? Finally, the command paper says that the UK’s approach to the Northern Ireland protocol is a consensual and pragmatic one. Does the Minister believe that the European Union has taken a consensual and pragmatic approach? If he does not think so, does he agree that it is absolutely crucial that those clauses that were taken out of the UK Internal Market Bill by your Lordships’ House are brought back by the other place and put back in?
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I was one of her constituents in Kennington for many years. We may not see eye to eye politically, but she always speaks with great conviction.
As other noble Lords have said, the commitment to delivering unfettered access was included in the New Decade, New Approach agreement and in that context from these virtual Benches we can give qualified support to this statutory instrument. There remain, however, as many other noble Lords have also indicated, a number of areas of concern. Today is the last day of November. In exactly one month’s time, the transition period will come to an end. On 1 January, it is clearly vital that businesses can continue to function, but the lack of clarity at this stage does little to provide us with a sense of confidence. It is also frustrating that so many of these decisions are coming so late in the day that there is an inevitable feel of “mend and make do” rather than a measured and thorough consideration of the issues involved.
In debating this SI, we already know that it will be replaced by more detailed proposals next year and by additional orders before the end of this year. In his speech, the Minister confirmed that unfettered access will be given effect in two phases. This SI represents the first phase and is the political equivalent, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, of a sticking plaster. It is to ensure that continuity is maintained and disruption avoided at the beginning of next year. As a result of this approach, many questions remain unanswered, as other noble Lords have indicated this evening.
For example, one area of concern is that of processed goods coming from Northern Ireland which have components originating from outside the region. Can the Minister confirm whether this approach to qualifying goods will have wider implications for the UK’s approach to rules of origin with the rest of the world? As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, spelled out so clearly, it remains unclear how non-qualifying goods will be determined and how they will be distinguished as they move from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Can the Minister say what will be the operating model for this process? What mechanisms will be put in place to distinguish between Northern Ireland goods and goods from the rest of the EU, including from the Republic of Ireland?
The House of Lords EU Committee has also raised concerns that Northern Ireland could become a “back door” for EU products entering the UK market without checks. Can the Minister say how they intend to prevent this from happening in reality? The Minister will know there is particular concern in the food and drink sector that cheaper or non-authentic versions of quality products may be able to reach the UK market in this way. In the debate in the House of Commons, Penny Mordaunt stated that anti-avoidance measures will be
“introduced in a timely manner”,—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 10/11/20; col. 7.]
but declined to give a more detailed timetable. Perhaps I may therefore repeat the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, on the anti-avoidance measures. Given, as I have said, that tomorrow will be the first day of December and the deadline for the end of the transition period is fast approaching, can the Minister shed further light on when these anti-avoidance measures are likely to be introduced?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for introducing this SI. There are a couple of issues I would like to raise, although we will support it when it goes through the House.
First, there is that funny thing that this SI relates to the internal market Bill, which, as the Minister knows better than most, has yet to complete its passage through the House. Indeed, looking at the post-Report version of the Bill, which is some 51 pages long, compared with the original 57, it is far from being a ready-cooked product. However, I have to say to at least three noble Lords in the Committee that I have every reason to believe that, if the original clauses are reimposed in the Commons, they will promptly be taken out again by your Lordships’ House.
Be that as it may, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, we have been told that the anti-avoidance measures which are to accompany this are due to arrive here “in due course”, but we do not know when that will be. Brandon Lewis said that they would
“be in place by the end of the year”,
which gives us just a month to get them done, although for some of us that includes Christmas. It is fairly obvious that, if anything that happens to be in Northern Ireland—other than things subject to customs controls—can enter freely into GB, the temptation to use the no-checks entry points as a back door will be attractive to some, either on competition or quality issues, or perhaps for worse reasons. That would be especially worrying if it was a way of avoiding tariffs. I know that the National Crime Agency has warned about the risk, alongside the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That is especially important in the light of another point I wanted to make, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords.
The definition which this order seeks to capture is not only temporary but unclear. The Government say that they will come up with a more refined definition in due course, but there is no explanation of why they have been unable to do so, and it is very hard to imagine how they will enforce something that is so temporary. My noble friend Lord Hain set out some examples of where the definition is grossly inadequate, and I think that few of us will forget his little pig, born in the Republic of Ireland, slaughtered in Northern Ireland, made into sausages in the Republic and packaged in Northern Ireland. I look forward to the Minister’s answer as to whether, tasty as it may be, it is a Northern Ireland or a Republic of Ireland sausage.
Fourthly—and the Minister will know of our concerns in this matter—to say that everything on sale in Northern Ireland can be sold anywhere and everywhere in GB risks undermining the devolution settlements, which in certain areas allow for and indeed welcome divergence. If higher-emission vehicles, plastic bags, peat pots or single-use plastic forks can be sold in Belfast, the Minister is telling us they must be sold in Bangor, even if the Welsh Government have decided to the contrary. We remain committed to using the common frameworks mechanism for sorting out these issues. Can the Minister explain whether this order would trump anything decided by the common frameworks process?
I also ask the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the risks of counterfeit—or, as has been mentioned, lower standard goods—being placed on the market in Great Britain, possibly at considerable consumer detriment, if they only have to be placed in the market and not even actually sold and therefore checked in Northern Ireland. Given that the Government seem to have prioritised flow over control, in the words of my noble friend Lord Hain, this risk is real. I assume that our trading standards inspectors could do nothing if goods arrived legally but unchecked in Great Britain.
We know that Northern Ireland businesses are already concerned about the January deadline, with representatives from retail, manufacturing and farming saying that they will simply not be ready for the new Irish sea border and need a further transition period. Manufacturing NI has called for a grace period in which the UK and EU could “provide comfort” that goods could keep moving. The Northern Ireland Retail Consortium said that business was being given only six weeks to implement changes which would normally take two years, and it needs some sort of phase-in period. That is even more the case with the lack of clarity in the definition included in this order and, as we have said, the lack of any indication of anti-avoidance measures.
Can the Minister outline his response to how such businesses feel about this order and detail the involvement of the devolved Administrations with its preparation, given the concerns that I have that it would undermine the devolved settlements, forcing anything sold in Belfast to be sold in Wales, say, despite its laws to the contrary? Perhaps he could supply that timetable for the anti-avoidance measure, which the Northern Ireland Secretary said would be done by the end of this year.
Lord True (Con)
The fundamental response to the noble Baroness is that Northern Ireland by the will of its people is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Therefore it behoves the United Kingdom Government to secure that position, and we will seek to do so. I would be surprised if the other devolved Administrations actually wished or intended to place obstacles in the way of the movement of goods from Northern Ireland. I would be astonished to think that that would be the political intent or desire of any Government within these islands.
I repeat that this regulation, as the noble Baroness and several other noble Lords have alluded to, and as I said in my opening speech, is part of a programme or set of measures that includes the UKIM Bill. I know what the noble Baroness said—that, if the UKIM Bill returned, attempting to provide a guarantee of unfettered access, she would advise your Lordships simply not to discuss it again but to throw it out. In my humble submission, it is not part of the role of the revising Chamber, which your Lordships’ House is, to simply throw things out that are sent to us by the elected House without even considering them or considering detailed amendments in Committee. To do it once is bad, but to do it again on something as important as unfettered access would be strange.
I was asked a number of questions. We got straight into sausages, which seemed very much a subject of concern. I remember the first time I ever went to Londonderry-Derry, so long ago that Doherty’s sausages were all the rage in those days, and I enjoyed them. I had long experience at university of sausages made in Northern Ireland. To answer the question on definition, which is what this statutory instrument is about, in this first phase, any good such as a sausage in free circulation in Northern Ireland will qualify. We are working closely with Northern Ireland traders and the Executive, as I said, on the second phase definition. That will focus the benefits of unfettered access specifically on NI traders.
I do not know how to stop this phone ringing, but if noble Lords can bear the sound, I will continue. The first-phase approach provides certainty for businesses at the end of the year, which is what they have been asking for.
On circumvention, we are bringing forward anti-avoidance provisions that will deter traders from routing their goods via Northern Ireland to GB. I will come back to this point, which was raised by a number of noble Lords.
I turn to goods that are simply packaged in Northern Ireland, when the product is from the EU. Again, this definition is about providing certainty to NI traders and guaranteeing unfettered access to their largest and most important market at the end of this year. So, in the first phase, these goods will qualify—but we are, as we have discussed, working on the second-phase approach, to be introduced in 2021, which will focus the benefits of unfettered access on Northern Ireland businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked when we will have that further definition. I can say to him that it will be brought forward “very early in 2021”; that is what I am advised.
I was asked whether I could confirm that the approach we have taken is intended to align with the broader phased approach to the EU-GB border. Again, I hope that this will be the case, but I have not had any firm advice on that. The new anti-avoidance measures will come this year via a finance Bill that will be brought forward in the coming weeks.
I turn to enforcement and accept what a number of noble Lords have said: that goods will move. Enforcement mechanisms will be behind-the-border compliance and monitoring, which will in no way disrupt NI-GB trade.
The point about goods routed via the Republic of Ireland to GB from Northern Ireland was made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. We do recognise that the priority remains having a regime in place that focuses its benefits on Northern Ireland traders and ensures that they enjoy those benefits, however they move their goods, whether directly or via the Republic. So, from 1 January, we will ensure that tariffs will not be due on qualifying goods moving via Ireland. Anyone can move qualifying Northern Ireland goods from Northern Ireland via the Irish Republic to Great Britain without needing to pay customs duties on entry to Great Britain, and goods will not need to be moved under transit for this to be the case. I should note that of course, it is not for the UK Government to say what processes the Irish Government should choose to apply in those circumstances.
I was asked about engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive. We have engaged extensively, including at First Minister and Deputy First Minister level, and they are supportive and understanding of the phased approach. There have also been extensive discussions at official level, and via ministerial engagements such as in JMC (EN) and the quad talks, led by my right honourable friend the Paymaster General.
I was asked how in the agri-food area “Northern Ireland processors” would be defined and what would happen when a GB business moved, say, a carcass from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for deboning and processing under customs supervision, therefore not needing to comply with full import formalities on entry into Northern Ireland, before being returned to Great Britain to be placed on the market there. The product will not be in free circulation in Northern Ireland, so it would not meet the definition in Section 3(1)(a)—but it would clearly be a good that should benefit from unfettered access protections. That is why the second limb of the qualifying Northern Ireland goods definition ensures that these goods are able to return to Great Britain, enjoying unfettered access during that movement.
I was asked about the role of HMRC, which will administer the anti-avoidance provisions and compliance regime, along with Border Force, as the authorities with responsibility in that space. As I have said, this will not involve disruption to NI-GB trade but will be entirely behind-the-border compliance activities. No new infrastructure is required in Northern Ireland to administer unfettered access or the qualifying regime.
I was asked more than once by noble Lords why we are phasing. The first-phase definition, as I sought to explain in my opening remarks, is focused on minimising disruption on 1 January: that is what Northern Ireland traders have asked for. As I have said, the second-phase definition will be brought forward early in 2021 and will focus on the benefits of unfettered access for Northern Ireland traders, in line with their expectations.
The Government have acknowledged, and I have acknowledged, that the process is taking a good time, and noble Lords will know—this has been referred to in our discussion—that negotiations and contacts are still taking place this week in the Joint Committee. We all fervently hope that those discussions will have issue soon, but, clearly, we are seeking to keep Northern Ireland traders and the Northern Ireland Executive alongside, so far as we can.
I repeat the fundamental point that I began with: the undertaking for unfettered access was given by Her Majesty’s Government. It is subscribed to by the European Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, and it is enshrined in the New Decade, New Approach document. Surely, we should all agree. I have heard agreement in this debate on the principle of unfettered access, so I look forward—hopefully—to all noble Lords present lending their support to that commitment in the UKIM Bill when it returns. I commend these regulations.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Oral Questions will now begin. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Hydrogen Sector
Baroness Meacher
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to support private investment in the hydrogen sector in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, we have announced that, working with industry, the Government are aiming for 5 gigawatts of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity in the UK by 2030—a clear signal of intent. We will support this through a whole range of measures seeking to stimulate private investment, including a £240 million net zero hydrogen fund and provision of a revenue mechanism to be delivered by hydrogen business models on which we will bring forward details early next year.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I had the great pleasure of coming to Parliament this morning in very beautiful, absolutely silent hydrogen-powered car. I assure noble Lords that the hydrogen economy is well and truly with us. UK-made, world-first hydrogen boilers, fuel cells, buses, planes, ships and trains all exist—and, importantly, they are safe—and are in use and supporting UK jobs. With hydrogen as point 2 in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, can the Minister say a bit more about what action the Government are taking now to bring forward policies to unlock the £3 billion of shovel-ready private investment for UK hydrogen projects?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to point out the positive moves that the whole country, the industry and the Government are making in this area. The UK is ideally positioned to benefit from the potential of low-carbon hydrogen, which could unlock up to 100,000 domestic and export jobs by 2050. We have set out a clear ambition and are developing a strong policy package to support it, including the £240 million that I have mentioned, which will speed up deployment of low-carbon production as well as hydrogen business models and the revenue mechanism behind them. It is these initiatives that will stimulate the billions of pounds of private investment that the noble Baroness referred to.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, given that the Hydrogen Taskforce estimates that the UK hydrogen economy can create and sustain 75,000 jobs—I note that the Minister mentioned 100,000 jobs just now—what new training programmes are being developed to ensure that there are sufficient highly-qualified people to take these jobs?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I cannot answer that question in specific terms. All I can say is that the money being invested in apprenticeship programmes across industry will help to develop that. If I can get some further information for the noble Baroness, I will write to her with more details.
Lord Oates (LD)
Does the Minister recognise that leaving it to the market alone to choose between blue and green hydrogen will not deliver the step change in production that is required? Will the Government now set a specific target for the UK’s green hydrogen capacity by 2030, as many countries across the world have already done, in order to stimulate private sector investment, drive down costs and deliver on the Government’s overall net-zero target?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I think I have answered the bit of the noble Lord’s question about what we are doing to stimulate private investment. The Government are reluctant to set targets for the split between blue and green hydrogen, in case that limits the investment in either side; we need both in order to reach zero carbon. The 10-point plan has set out a clear ambition for new low-carbon hydrogen and the UK is ideally placed to bring forward both blue and green hydrogen production methods to grow a strong, resilient UK hydrogen economy. This twin-track approach will enable production to be brought forward at the necessary scale during the 2020s. The noble Lord will be aware of the Gas Goes Green initiative, which will promote and advance the use of green gases such as hydrogen and biomethane in the gas grid.
Lord Bamford (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my entry in the register. While I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, is my noble friend aware that the accelerating shift to electric vehicles is being interpreted by many as an outright ban on the internal combustion engine? This is concerning. Is it, in fact, Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to ban the internal combustion engine? Is my noble friend aware that the internal combustion engine can be operated very efficiently with zero-carbon, green hydrogen, and thus contribute to zero emissions? Fossil fuels are the enemy, not the internal combustion engine.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My noble friend speaks with great authority on this point. He is right that various modes of transport are already able to use hydrogen fuel cells to provide zero emissions at the tail-pipe. He will be aware of hydrogen pumps sited alongside petrol pumps at some service stations already. However, while hydrogen can also be combusted in internal combustion engines without greenhouse gas emissions, it does produce nitric oxide, so would not count as zero emission. My noble friend can be reassured that the Government’s intention is to phase out new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 and for all new cars and vans to be zero emission at the tail-pipe by 2035. Every effort is being made to support innovation and scale-up of low-carbon hydrogen across the value chain.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
I draw the attention of noble Lords to my entry in the register. There remain significant technical risks with the use of hydrogen. For example, capture rates of carbon capture and storage technology used in the production of hydrogen could result in high residual carbon emissions. Therefore, does the Minister agree that mature, low-carbon heating technologies, for example heat networks and heat pumps, should be deployed at a rate commensurate with the 2050 target, in case hydrogen does not prove viable at scale?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I do agree with the noble Lord. He is right that proving the safety case through rigorous testing and trials is critical to the success of any new technology or fuel source. That is why the 10-point plan sets out plans for a series of incremental trials, potentially leading up to a hydrogen village by the end of this decade. Alongside this, it also sets out plans to implement the future home standard in the shortest possible time, so that new buildings can have high levels of energy efficiency and low-carbon heating, including the aim for 600,000 heat pump installations per year by 2028. The truth is that we need all these technologies to be developed at scale.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
Last week’s announcement of the scattergun 10-point plan as a global template for delivering net-zero emissions, amounting to only £500 million for low-carbon hydrogen production by 2030, contrasts with the €7 billion hydrogen investment announced by the German Government. What kind of hydrogen, and the split, will this involve? The key issue is to create a UK hydrogen gas production and supply network, utilising excess wind power at times of low demand to produce green hydrogen energy-dense power. When might the Government have answers to these real questions?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The ambitious figures propounded by other EU countries which the noble Lord mentioned often have no actual policy underpinning. The point of the 10-point plan, and of the hydrogen strategy that will be announced in January, is to add some meat to the bones of these initiatives. The UK has already committed £240 million, and some of these carbon capture and storage and hydrogen manufacturing plants will indeed be sited near green energy sources such as offshore wind.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, the UK has the opportunity to become a true world leader in the manufacture of hydrogen buses. Last week, the Chancellor committed to purchase 800 zero-carbon buses. How many of these will be hydrogen? Can the Minister tell the House when funding will be made available for the rest of the 4,000 UK-made buses that the Government promised last February?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to point out the progress that we have made on buses. The Government have supported the use of a range of low-carbon bus technologies, including the deployment of 62 hydrogen buses and supporting infrastructure. Our £23 million hydrogen for transport programme is increasing the uptake of other fuel cell electric vehicles and growing the number of publicly accessible hydrogen refuelling stations. We have also been supporting public and private sector fleets to become early adopters, through the £2 million fuel cell electric vehicle fleet support scheme. This initiative is very important to the Government in trying to provide a number of different strategies and support mechanisms, not just financial ones.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the reference to hydrogen in last week’s 10-point plan. The Minister will be aware that the energy sector has a long track record in Gwynedd and Ynys Môn. Can she give some indication of how the 10-point plan will help the many relevant industries in Wales play their part in supporting the UK’s commitment on net zero?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that great interest and activity have already been shown across Wales in low-carbon hydrogen production and use, from research all the way through to application. Low-carbon hydrogen could play a key role in decarbonising heavy industry, particularly in Wales. I know that this is being actively looked at through the Welsh Hydrogen Reference Group. I point the noble Lord particularly towards the net-zero hydrogen fund, which will provide £240 million of capital support alongside industry investment to increase low-carbon hydrogen production right across the four nations of the United Kingdom.
Covid-19: Northern Ireland Economy
Lord Caine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of jobs saved in Northern Ireland as a result of the measures they have introduced to deal with the economic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government’s unprecedented employment support package has protected an estimated 327,000 jobs—that is, one in four. Government-backed loans worth more than £1.3 billion have been given to more than 35,000 firms since the outbreak. Under the winter economic plan, Northern Ireland businesses will continue to receive the help that they need, including an extension to government schemes—including the furlough scheme and the Self-employment Income Support Scheme—and an extension of VAT reductions for hospitality.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Do these figures not underline, yet again, the strength and security that Northern Ireland gains from being an integral part of the United Kingdom—benefits that could not be matched under any other constitutional arrangement? Do they not also underline the fact that all four parts of the United Kingdom are better together? Does my noble friend agree that the Government need to be proactive in selling the economic and other benefits of the union in all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend is correct in what he says—we strongly believe in upholding the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom, as he has also said. Our four nations are safer, stronger and more prosperous together. On that note, Northern Ireland benefits from being part of the world’s sixth largest economy, which allows it to benefit from the highest public spending per head: £11,987, which is 21% higher than the UK spends per head.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there is no doubt that the government measures have been vital for Northern Ireland, but I am sure that the Minister recognises its vulnerabilities with regard to very high and long-term unemployment rates and the lack of certainty for business over the protocol arrangement. Are the Government really satisfied that the extra £920 million given to Northern Ireland will be sufficient to cope with the twin challenges of Brexit and Covid?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point, and I reassure him that, in relation to the measures that we have given to Northern Ireland, they are more than supportive. He will know that there are several major companies in Northern Ireland, including some supermarkets such as Tesco and Asda, which we continue to support as well as all the others.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, the additional support provided by the Government to the Northern Ireland Executive throughout this pandemic has made real-life differences to many communities and businesses in Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Caine, has said, it shows the real benefits of the union, economically, socially and politically.
The pandemic has dealt a huge blow to the aviation industry, nowhere more so than in Northern Ireland. The Government promised a recovery plan for the aviation industry back in March. Has this plan been published and has there been any discussion about it with the devolved institutions? This sector needs a UK-wide approach if it is to succeed.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point about connectivity, and the Government are committed to maintaining connectivity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland during these unprecedented times. In relation to aviation, that is why we have worked with the Executive to provide a £5.7 million financial support package to the City of Derry Airport and Belfast City Airport to ensure that services to and from London continue at the height of the pandemic.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I have never seen “Game of Thrones”—I am saving that up for my retirement—but I do know that it was filmed in Northern Ireland, which is one of the great centres in the United Kingdom for the success of our creative industries in film, television and other areas. Will my noble friend do all he can to ensure that these industries are protected during the pandemic, particularly with a view to the centenary coming next year, when they will, no doubt, play an important role?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I visited the site of “Game of Thrones” a few months ago—it was very interesting. Obviously, this is a devolved area, and the Government have provided the Northern Ireland Executive with additional finance of £2.8 billion for 2021-22 to address the challenges. The Northern Ireland Executive’s Artists Emergency Programme has provided awards of up to £5,000 to support those in the arts sector, creating work and making a vital contribution to the well-being of communities.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, key to protecting the economy and safeguarding jobs in Northern Ireland during the Covid crisis is childcare provision. A recent survey by Employers For Childcare showed that three-quarters of Northern Ireland parents had no access to childcare during some or all of the pandemic. This is particularly true for the least well off and those working reduced hours. Can the Minister say what additional support the Government will provide, including financial support through tax credits, for the childcare sector?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The extra £2.8 billion has been directed towards Northern Ireland to help it with such matters, but I should say that each devolved nation has its own unique circumstances, so these are matters for the Executive to take forward. However, that support from the United Kingdom should provide enormous help, at least.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, does not this Question underline the need for the Northern Ireland Office to stop giving the impression that it is neutral on the union and start making clear what it is doing, in conjunction with the devolved Assembly, to help shape a modernised, inclusive Northern Ireland with a flourishing economy assisted by the job-preserving measures that we are discussing? In Northern Ireland, as in Scotland, is there not a danger that this Government will be seen as paying mere lip service to the unionism that they ought to be expounding with commitment and vigour?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
This follows on, perhaps, from my noble friend Lord Caine’s Question. The UK Government have a responsibility to people, businesses and communities across the whole of the UK. The Northern Ireland Office has been at the forefront of this and will continue to work closely with the other UK departments and devolved Administrations to ensure that the same approach is taken as we recover from the economic aftermath of the pandemic, driving growth and technology across the UK. My noble friend makes a good point about the importance of promoting the union.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland was higher than the rest of the UK before the pandemic struck. Now, with redundancies rising, especially in the manufacturing, retail and transport sectors, the situation is very likely to get worse. Does the Minister agree that the country deserves more help with funding to get it back on its feet after the pandemic?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point about the support that is needed for Northern Ireland, and I reiterate that the £2.8 billion will go a very long way to supporting its economy. I am particularly aware of small businesses and the major businesses, such as Moy Park and Bombardier, all of which need our support. We are working in tandem with the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Executive to do this.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the extra money across the whole of the United Kingdom shows the value of the union, but does the Minister agree that money alone is not what strengthens the union and that, actually, Her Majesty’s Government must do more to speak out for the union, as they do in relation to Scotland? Does he accept that, sometimes, it is better that the Government make their views known very clearly and do not just assume that they always have to be on the neutral side of what is happening in Northern Ireland?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct, and I reiterate that the unit in No. 10 is looking to see what more can be done—and there is more that needs to be done—to promote the value of the union. Of course, the noble Baroness will be aware that, in 2021, we mark the 100 years since the creation of Northern Ireland, which paved the way for the formation of the United Kingdom as we know it today, so it is a golden opportunity to step up our progress on this front.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, my noble friend referred to supermarkets. Is he aware that the managing director of Sainsbury’s and directors of Marks & Spencer indicated last week that up to 15% of food product lines may not be available in Northern Ireland after 1 January? How is that consistent with the wretched protocol that is supposed to be helping us? It is a serious threat to the economy of Northern Ireland. Would he agree that that announcement from those supermarkets is a matter of grave concern?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We do not agree that Northern Ireland businesses will be disadvantaged as the United Kingdom diverges from EU rules. The system provides the underlying framework for the whole UK internal market, including Northern Ireland, while respecting the UK’s obligations under the protocol. I understand the nature of the noble Lord’s question, but reassurances have been given. Perhaps we need to give him further reassurances.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and we now come to the third Oral Question.
Intellectual Property Rights: Affordable Drugs
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to use the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights to guarantee access to affordable drugs in (1) the United Kingdom, and (2) developing countries.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
The Government have long supported affordable and equitable access to medicines, including in developing countries. We believe that a robust and fair intellectual property system is essential for an innovation framework. It allows economies to grow while enabling society to benefit from knowledge and ideas. The Government are therefore working within the TRIPS framework to collaborate with public and private partners, in the UK and internationally, to promote affordable access to medicines for all.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in the context of hundreds of millions of Covid vaccines being held in the United Kingdom and the significant sums of public money invested in developing new drugs and treatments, notwithstanding the need to generate funds to enable future research and development, when companies such as Gilead repurpose drugs such as remdesivir and charge $2,340 for a Covid treatment that Liverpool University estimates can be made for $9, should the Government not invoke their powers to use Crown licences to prevent patent monopolies impeding access to medicine, to ensure equitable access, to prevent exploitative profiteering, and to recognise that affordable drugs and their fair distribution are a public good that this country should be at the forefront in providing?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I think we all agree that the world urgently needs access for all to safe, effective, quality and affordable vaccines, diagnostic medicines and other health technologies to enable an effective response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Intellectual property rights provide incentives to create and commercialise new inventions such as life-changing vaccines. In short, they keep innovators innovating, creators creating and investors investing.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, as a former UK chairman of the charity Plan International for about 20 years, I visited many overseas centres, so I know how essential it is that developing countries have access to affordable and necessary drugs, and, even more importantly, advice on how they should be used. Too often, I found that they received the drugs, but they would remain on the shelf as they needed to be trained in how and when to use them. Will the Minister ensure that the Government take appropriate action to deal with this need?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My noble friend makes an excellent point; without education, these drugs will not reach their full efficacy. We encourage active dialogue between industries and Governments to explore how best to work together and educate the citizens of countries to make the best use of these drugs.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, there is a strong moral imperative in what my noble friend Lord Alton said. When one thinks of the effect drugs and chemicals have had in helping some of the poorest areas in the world with, for example, HIV and malaria, would the Minister not agree that it is important, with the reduction in overseas development aid, that we help these people get these drugs in the same way that we hope we will in this country?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his point. There are existing mechanisms that facilitate the sharing of intellectual property—for example, the Medicines Patent Pool, which has been so successful with HIV. To follow up on this point, we are committed to identifying whether and how CTAP could add value to the existing infrastructure.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Berkeley. This devastating pandemic is global in nature. Is the Minister aware that in giving evidence to the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Select Committee, the African Union’s special envoy Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala had a simple message, which was
“to make sure that we have volume and quantity for everyone and that poor countries are not locked out”,
by which she meant locked out on the basis, mainly, of price? In the past, the Government have been prepared to threaten use of Crown licences legislation. Are they prepared to do that to ensure that those in the poorest countries in the world who most need these drugs have the same access as our own citizens will have?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
The noble Lord makes an excellent point. There are flexibilities in the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement. WTO members can use these to ensure access. We actively encourage less-developed countries to look at this, because by taking advantage of these flexibilities they can bring real benefits to their citizens.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, history tells us that reliance on the good will of pharmaceutical companies is misplaced. For example, swathes of the world still lack access to HIV/AIDS medicines. Given that the development of Covid-19 vaccines is largely taxpayer-funded, will the Government back the WHO’s support for a temporary waiver to parts of the TRIPS Agreement?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
As I said in answer to a previous question, there are flexibilities in the existing TRIPS Agreement. As I said, I encourage countries to take advantage of these flexibilities, because what could be more important than ensuring that supplies of the Covid-19 vaccine reach their citizens?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Reid’s question, we welcome the Government’s policy of affordable and accessible medicines for all, but how does that policy square with the parallel export ban of over 80 medicines earlier this year to help ensure that there is an uninterrupted supply of medicines for NHS hospitals treating coronavirus patients, which would effectively prevent UK companies sending even paracetamol to Covid-19 sufferers in other countries?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, nobody is a greater supporter of free trade than my department and me, but short-term considerations occasionally arise, particularly relating to public health emergencies, when those important general principles have to be put aside for very short periods of time to ensure that the NHS has access to the drugs it needs. I am sure most noble Lords would welcome this.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, how much of the overseas aid has been reserved to help to pay for accessible drugs for developing countries?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My noble friend asks a good question. I do not have those detailed figures at my fingertips; I undertake to write to him.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, for obvious reasons we have focused largely on equal access to vaccines but, given the broader significance and implications of this Oral Question on affordable drugs and the fact that Global Cancer Week took place earlier this month, are any negotiations currently taking place on access to affordable cancer treatments, especially in developing countries?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
The right reverend Prelate asks an excellent question. I am not aware of the details of any discussions of that sort; to ensure that I can give him a complete answer, I will write to him on that also.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Clark of Kilwinning. No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, how are we assisting countries to take advantage of the flexibilities in the current rules on this TRIPS issue? Can we do more to help them access these drugs affordably?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
Our posts on the ground well know the importance of this. We try to bring these flexibilities home to these countries through all available channels; one would hope that they would use these flexibilities, as they would be so much to their advantage.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Summit of Democratic Governments
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D'Souza
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for convening a summit of the governments of the 10 leading democracies in spring 2021.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, our G7 presidency will convene a number of democratic nations next year, building on the G7’s shared values as democratic and open societies. This is part of a year of UK international leadership. The Government do not currently plan to convene an additional summit of 10 democracies in spring 2021.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. It is likely that global Britain will be in want of an international role following the end of the transition period. The UK still has considerable convening power, as shown by the recent joint letter signed by the UK, Canada and Australia on events in Hong Kong. Surely a transatlantic and transpacific democratic alliance could have a synergistic effect in tackling major problems such as climate change, building 5G, security, corruption and human rights. This would aim to be not an “anti” group, but rather a co-operating bloc to deal with specific issues and become something positioned between liberal naivety and the Cold War. Will the Government consider establishing an informal but influential network of democracies such as the G7, together with India, South Korea and Australia, to present a common front in upholding the rule of law?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, of course I agree with the sentiment of the noble Baroness. As she says, the UK works as part of a vast range of different multinational organisations, from the G7 and G20 to the Commonwealth, NATO and dozens of others. The membership of each group individually is limited, but taken collectively they mean that the UK partners with a great number of countries in one format or another. That will continue to be the philosophy guiding us forward
Baroness Fall (Con) [V]
My Lords, we welcome signals from President-elect Biden that America will now return to a more multilateral approach to solving the world’s problems and his plan to bring together like-minded democracies to promote values, including standing up for human rights across the world. As we look to take on the leadership of the G7 next year and attend the summit, could the Minister outline what tools the Government intend to deploy to put words into action through sanctions, soft power or even offering safe havens, and whether they will seek multinational support in doing so?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government share the aspiration of other leading democratic Governments to extend the benefits of democratic systems. As I said in answer to a question on Friday, I believe, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will announce the specific details of G7 initiatives shortly.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister tell us why India, currently in the news for trying to make Punjab farmers serfs on their own land, is suggested as one of the 10 leading democracies? Why are we turning a blind eye to the Modi Government’s discriminatory laws making millions of Muslims second-class citizens and others stateless, their brutal suppression in Kashmir, and the expulsion of Amnesty International for drawing attention to their widespread abuse of human rights? Does the Minister agree that a country which ignores human rights in its pandering to majority prejudice cannot be called a democracy?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as a Cabinet Office Minister answering a relatively narrow question, I will not make a broad denunciation of any nation. Our values are democratic; they are very widely shared and practised across the world. We wish to sustain that.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Singh, just said, it would be difficult to decide whom to include and exclude in any top 10 for a global democracy summit. Does the Minister agree that there may be questions about the eligibility of any country which breaks a promise of aid to the world’s poorest and threatens to breach international law?
Lord True (Con)
No, I do not agree with either of the final points. I answered a question on this last week. The UK remains the second-largest donor of foreign aid in the G7, spending £10,000 million in the planned programme next year in assistance to the world’s poorest countries. On the question of 10 nations, the Government did not bring this concept before the House today. I have expressed our view that we wish to reach out to all the world’s leading democracies in various fora.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that when China introduced the anti-democratic national security law into Hong Kong, very few EU countries, and none in Asia, Latin America or Africa, supported the UK at the United Nations? How do the Government propose to ensure that the UK’s global influence is not diminished by leaving the EU?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I said in reply to an earlier question that the United Kingdom sits in a range of vital and important multinational organisations, including the Commonwealth and NATO. We will remain there, and I have no doubt that the United Kingdom is very widely respected in all those fora.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, might it be worth while to convene a summit to review the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic when it has become safe to do so? How might the leading democracies work together to contain the spread of such pandemics?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the UK has worked closely with international partners throughout the pandemic, from the development of vaccines to supporting vulnerable countries, and we will continue to do so. As I have outlined, the UK is preparing an ambitious and—we hope—unifying G7 agenda which will promote international leadership and collaboration as we recover from Covid-19. The UK also co-sponsored the resolution adopted by the World Health Assembly in May, which included agreement for an independent review.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the D10, like President-elect Biden’s proposed summit for democracy, will be an assembly of countries with diverse regimes. This century the US has twice elected a President who lost the popular vote; Narendra Modi’s India is turning its Muslim minority into second-class citizens; the EU includes Hungary, led by Viktor Orbán, who is creating an illiberal democracy; and we have a Government legislating deliberately to break international law and proposing to stop citizens going to court to enforce their rights against their Government. Exactly what model for democracy are we holding up to the rest of the world in this proposal?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I need make no apology for the United Kingdom’s record of parliamentary democracy over generations.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that democratic models are not one size fits all, but that the objective can be summarised as being one of accountability to the people? With the days of autocracy numbered in the short term, I hope, and with the best chance of succeeding with democratic principles being enlightened government heads being supported from the bottom up and over a period of time with training, would the Government consider that aspiring nations in particular—some of which have been exposed to democracy for a comparably short period—are at the very least offered observer status at any future summit, with emphasis on the participation of young people and women, whence change can ultimately emanate?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I cannot anticipate decisions about observers or people who might be invited to the G7 summit—that decision will be taken in due course. So far as girls’ education is concerned, that is something which we will work on in co-hosting the Global Partnership for Education with Kenya in June.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister appears to be putting his emphasis on the G7 and rather dismissing President-elect Biden’s interest in calling a summit of democracies. Have I got that wrong?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have not mentioned President-elect Biden and his initiative on democracies—the noble Lord puts words that were never in my mouth. The Government will support any initiative from whatever quarter, including the President-elect, to promote democracy in the world.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and that finishes Question Time.
Business of the House
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That Standing Order 72 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with on Tuesday 1 December to enable motions to approve affirmative instruments laid before the House under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to be moved, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments will have been laid before the House; and, notwithstanding the Business of the House motion of 4 June, any debate on such affirmative instruments shall be limited to 4 hours.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
On behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper. It will allow the House to debate the statutory instruments containing the new national health protection measures tomorrow. The regulations will be published and laid before the House today and are due to come into force on Wednesday. The debate will be extended from the usual maximum of one and a half hours to four hours. I am grateful to the usual channels for their support in making the necessary arrangements to debate the regulations at relatively short notice. I beg to move.
Ship Recycling (Facilities and Requirements for Hazardous Materials on Ships) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 November.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annex to today’s list. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak once only on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If Members taking part remotely intend to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill
Monday 30th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 View all High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 142-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (25 Nov 2020)
16:11 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 274 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
17:30 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 259 - Amendment 4 agreed.
19:38 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 57 / Noes: 234 - Amendment 5 disagreed.
19:50 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 6 - Ayes: 38 / Noes: 222 - Amendment 6 disagreed.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Report be now received.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Berkeley
Leave out “now received” and insert “not received until a Select Committee has been appointed to consider Works Nos 62, 67, 67A, 67B, 67C, 67D, 69, 69A, 70, 70A, 93, 101B, 101C, 101D, 101E, 101F, 101G and 101H and Footpath Stone Rural 33 and related works as listed in Schedule 1 and the House has debated its report and a Government response; that no member who has spoken in proceedings on the bill be appointed to the Committee; that the Committee be given power to receive oral evidence and to appoint specialist advisers; and that the Committee report within three months of appointment.”
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this amendment at an unusual stage in the proceedings, my purpose is to debate how small changes are made to the Bill, not the route, either by the Government or by petitioners and the use of Transport and Works Act orders. I am grateful to the Minister for the meeting that she arranged with her and the Minister for High Speed 2, Andrew Stephenson MP. We had some useful discussion. The extraordinary thing is that it is not possible, under the current rules of this place, to debate a Select Committee report. In discussions with the helpful clerks, the next best solution that they came up with was that I move an amendment. I will explain what it does in a minute. I am afraid that it would cause delay, but I believe it offers some alternatives. We will see where that goes.
My purpose is to reopen petitions on phase 2a that asked for Transport and Works Act orders as a solution to the small changes that they were proposing. Both Select Committees, because of the custom and practice here, agreed that this should not be allowed. I will explain that in more detail.
Current practice allows for additional provisions or small changes to a Bill. They are approved in revised form in both Houses but, if the additional provision—I shall call them an AP—is proposed in the second House, it means going back to the first House for approval. This adds delay, so it has become custom and practice that an AP cannot to be accepted in the second House. The committee made that clear and I do not criticise it for so doing but, when petitioners propose changes that they believe will be beneficial, cheaper and reduce the impact on a local area—including one to change a viaduct into a tunnel at Wendover, Stone and Woore, in phase 1—their feeling is that attempt to get a fair hearing in the second House, which is usually the House of Lords, was not fair. They were not able to cross-examine the promoters and staff and came away rather unhappy.
My amendment, which is the only solution open to me to get the debate on TWAOs going, is to set up a committee of the House to look at areas of the Bill where petitioners had suggested the TWAO option, which is allowed under paragraph 8.118 of the Companion. The difference would be that the committee would hear evidence with an open mind and would be unfettered from not being able to recommend alternatives that would require an AP or TWAO. The committee’s remit would be confined to those issues where TWAOs were suggested by petitioners and not the whole scheme. It would hear evidence and would I hope be supported by an independent adviser who could advise the petitioners.
The key to the new committee, and we should reflect on this, is that it would recommend changes, but not how they would be implemented. That would be up to the Government, who could decide on a TWAO, or an AP with the additional time it takes, or they could refuse to do it at all. They can do that anyway.
The petitioners who I talked to expected a greater hearing. We discussed this in Committee. The committee clearly felt that it was acting within the constraint of solutions that would not require additional provisions or Transport and Works Act orders, so the petitioners thought that the process was unfair. This is not good for this project, future projects or communities that feel unfairly treated.
There is a solution: to use the TWAO that is provided for in Clause 49 of the Bill. In Committee, the Minister gave a very useful description of what the process entails, so I do not have to repeat it now. However, what worries me is that there does not seem to be any consistency in the use of a TWAO. The Government seem happy to decide when a TWAO should be used and when it should not. I am not in any way taking sides as to the rights and wrongs of each case, because that is how the process must work, but it is necessary to have a process that is fair and seen to be fair and consistent.
Perhaps I may give one or two examples, again without repeating what we discussed in Committee. In phase 2a, there is what has become known as the Stone railhead issue. As noble Lords have said, there has been a lot of discussion about that, and about issues such as the provision of evidence by HS2, the stability of an 11-metre high earth structure and things like that. I think the Select Committee’s conclusion in its special report was that:
“If it subsequently proves unfeasible to locate the IMB-R at Stone as the petitioners contend, it will be for HS2 to resolve the issue within the powers of the Bill.”
As the committee refused the option of a TWAO here, if the Government are to do this later, they will presumably have to do a TWAO at that stage. That will cause a great deal more delay. So why was it not allowed during the Select Committee hearing?
The other case is Woore Parish Council, which felt that it needed a TWAO to help with the flow of lorries to the construction sites and proposed the option of using the Keele services on the M6. We will be discussing transport, heavy lorries and other issues in later groups of amendment, but for the local residents the council’s suggestions seemed much better than HS2’s proposals.
I have discussed before the issue of a tunnel at Wendover, but more recently I have received a copy of a letter from Rob Butler MP, the MP for Aylesbury, who has written to the Minister at some length on it. He commented:
“While HS2 Ltd disputes the Wendover proposal’s figures, the company has consistently refused to provide the evidence to back up its stance – be it technical data on the method of construction, or accurate costings”.
He asks in his letter whether the tunnel alternative actually required a TWAO, but the extraordinary thing is that he then quotes a letter from the Minister, who said:
“Our legal advice is that any scheme that conflicts with the specific description of the work in question … is not permissible”,
and you cannot turn a railway into a viaduct or tunnel, or vice versa. But Rob Butler goes on to say that the Government are changing exactly that by extending a tunnel at a place called Bromford, beyond the length explicitly referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act. The extension conflicts with the description of the works in question, and the Government are proposing it with a TWAO. In the end, Rob Butler MP said:
“If I may put it bluntly, either Schedule 1 of the HS2 (London to West Midlands) Act 2017 is immutable or it is not. Given the Department for Transport has given leave at Bromford to deviate from the consented scheme, it appears a mechanism exists for such changes to be enacted without amending the Phase One Act”.
He added:
“If a tunnel can be granted at Bromford, with the use of a TWAO, why cannot this take place … in Wendover”?
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the first thing to be said on this amendment is for us all to record our thanks to the Select Committee for the sterling and exhaustive work that it did over many months in considering this Bill on behalf of the House. To the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and his colleagues, many of whom are present in the House this afternoon, we extend our thanks. When we considered my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s proposal in Grand Committee, the noble and learned Lord gave what I thought was a magisterial and comprehensive response to it, which leaves me surprised, to say the least, that my noble friend has brought it back to the House today.
The arrangements that the noble and learned Lord set out for the consideration of hybrid Bills are well established, with additional provisions being set forward in the first House but not in the second House. That gives ample opportunity for petitioners to petition but does not unduly extend the process by which Parliament considers these matters. It is a long-established convention that the additional provisions are in the first House and not introduced in the second House. The noble and learned Lord gave a very compelling response as to why TWAOs, in the instances which my noble friend has set out, are not appropriate because they cut across the customary consideration of the Bill, which is radically different from TWAOs that are additional to Bills and promoted in respect of changes after Bills have been enacted. The proper way to consider changes to a hybrid Bill is to amend the hybrid Bill and, where necessary, in the first House, insert the additional provisions, not—because a petitioner was unable to persuade the committee in the first instance, or did not bring in a timely manner proposals to the committee in the first instance—to seek to reopen the issue in a completely new way by means of a TWAO.
It might have been better if my noble friend had been clear that he is seeking to delay consideration of the Bill and to delay the project. He openly opposes the project, as we all know—he has opposed it at every stage. That is perfectly legitimate and honourable. I happen to think that high-speed rail is the face of the future for linking our great cities; if my noble friend wants to be stuck in the Victorian age, that is fine, but he should be open about it. After the exhaustive provision which your Lordships and the other House have made on this Bill, in accord with our customary procedures and in a committee chaired by a former head of the Supreme Court, it is now a bit late to reopen these issues, with the transparent motive of delaying the Bill.
I hope that we can move on rapidly to the substantive issues before us. The most substantive, which I cannot wait to get stuck into, is sticking to the plan for HS2 to link our major cities, and not going along with proposals by the Government to scale it back and deliver half of HS2. That would be an absolute tragedy for the nation.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, at the end of the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who it is always a pleasure to follow, implied, and has somewhat repeated today, that those who want to improve the Bill in any way are trying to stop it entirely. Although I am not a fan of the current HS2 project, I am in favour of high-speed rail. The problem was around the routing. However, I accept that the first phase, which affected me most, is going ahead.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, put his finger on two things, the first of which was the Hybrid Bill procedure. That is not for the Chamber today, but is something for us all to think about. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said that it is not customary procedure. That points out that there is a procedure which is not customary, and perhaps that should be looked at again.
Secondly, the most important thing that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, was that there will always be a few people who will be upset by the result, as with a Planning Committee. If your planning application goes ahead, those who opposed it think there is some skulduggery afoot, and vice versa. The noble Lord mentioned the Wendover situation, which is in phase 1 and is effectively done and dusted. I do not want the same problems again following phases of HS2. It is paramount that the Government take as many of the public along with them as possible, not only those whose lives are affected, sometimes dramatically, but the rest of the country, who might see this as quite an expensive project. To persuade the people who have put the Government in place that this is a good project, some of these TWAOs should be heard.
I understand that this is not the customary procedure, and that it is late now. I do not particularly want this Bill delayed any further—we might as well get on with it. However, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has raised a very interesting and useful point of debate. If there are going to be such projects, we should think about how to maximise support for them with the public.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my railway interests on the register, and apologise that I was not able to take part in Committee. However, I have read Hansard, and it is clear to me and, I suspect, any objective reader that my noble friend Lord Berkeley was unable to persuade the other Members that further reviews of HS2, such as the one that he is suggesting in his amendment this afternoon, are needed. It was put during Committee that he was attempting to kill the project through endless reviews. My noble friend Lord Adonis went as far as to accuse him of being disingenuous. I am not sure whether that is a parliamentary term or whether it would be regarded as acerbity of speech, but it seems extraordinary that having served on the Oakervee review—as deputy chairman, no less—alongside the most distinguished group of independents drawn from academia, industry, the City, the national railway, Transport for London and local government, including the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, my noble friend, having failed to convince them, should now be saying that we should halt the progress of this Bill while yet another Select Committee is appointed.
I would be grateful if, when he replies, my noble friend could explain one aspect of his amendment which he did not mention: his attempt to tie the hands of the Committee of Selection and limit the membership of the proposed new committee. I do not remember seeing that before in your Lordships’ House. It would be a very undesirable precedent. It is a rather different tone to the one that my noble friend adopted when the House approved the composition of the Hybrid Bill Select Committee on 5 March. He said then
“I offer a few words of congratulation to the noble Lords appointed to this committee. With previous Select Committees, the House of Lords has really done very well in listening to petitions and coming up with recommendations… my plea to noble Lords on the committee, apart from wishing them well, is to listen to petitioners, give them time and listen to the evidence—I know that they will—rather more than sometimes happens in the Select Committees of the other place, where everybody is in a hurry.”—[Official Report, 05/3/20; cols. 725-26.]
While I am quoting my noble friend, let me share with the House his words at the Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill, which contradicts something that my noble friend Lord Adonis said a moment ago:
“Many speakers have spoken to support the line. I support HS2 and I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.”—[Official Report, 14/4/16; col. 405.]
What many of us find hard to understand is what or who has got to him to make him change his mind.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, because it is important to hear from local groups, from those with a lot of expertise, from people with specialist skills and from those who really care about their immediate environment. It is valuable.
An earlier speaker said that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was back in the Victorian age. I have known the noble Lord for a long time, and I was told long before I met him that he was a real fanatic, if I may say that, who loves railways, as I do. I do not have a car; I go everywhere by train, and my partner works on the railways. There is no doubt that I like railways and trains. I want to make that clear, in case any aspersions are cast against me by later speakers. The Victorian age was the most incredible time for building railways, so that was a very inapt historical comment—a bit shaky on the history.
I am sorry for people who cannot keep up with the change in society that is happening so fast. Have we really learned nothing from the pandemic over the past year, when people have taken to remote working and have loved staying at home and seeing more of their kids, having more time and working and shopping locally? From that point of view, it has been a real success. From my point of view as a big opponent of HS2, HS2 has caused, and will cause, untold damage to our natural environment. It is being built for a market that will not exist in a future that will not happen, and I really wish that people could keep up with what is going on.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, I must admire the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his persistence and consistency. As has already been noted, he is fundamentally opposed to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, already referred to the masterly summing up of the procedural situation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who chaired the committee on which I had the honour to sit. It was not just a matter of precedent, although, as a matter of precedence, it is for the House to examine as a separate entity, and not just as an issue buried inside one Bill, whether the current procedure is adjudged by noble Lords to be ideal and whether dealing with it as a matter buried inside one Bill is a proper way of addressing people’s concerns about the procedure, in so far as those concerns exist.
There was plenty of opportunity in the other place for the matters that are now being raised to be considered, and it was therefore not appropriate, under our existing procedure, for the second House to address those things. There is also a practical problem. If one introduces a further step, whether by additional provision or by a TWAO, fresh uncertainty is brought into the case. Landowners might well be affected by any change undertaken in that way, so, in fairness to them, you would have to go back and rehearse the arguments all over again.
I have dealt with only this one case of the HS2 Bill; nevertheless, I think that the procedure is perfectly sound, giving every opportunity for cases to be heard. My goodness, we should be proud as a Parliament that it is possible for people to bring their grievance or petition and have it heard in both Houses of Parliament. Through that process, there is plenty of opportunity for any glaring injustices to be dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the depot or railhead at Stone and the village of Woore. I am subject to correction on this, but I am not aware that, through our proceedings in the Select Committee, those who represented the interests regarding Stone made the suggestion that they should have the opportunity, by means of a TWAO, for further discussion of the route; nor do I recall any such suggestion from those who represented Woore. The committee visited Woore and saw the situation for itself. Therefore, quite honestly I cannot see that this amendment does anything other than contribute to the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to delay and possibly wreck what is, in my view, an important piece of legislation.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have tried to consider this amendment not as a debate over whether the route should go ahead, but on its merits. I found it difficult to understand, but it seemed that the essential objective was to allow petitioners to make further submissions—a second bite at the cherry, as it were.
Reading the committee’s report, I am content that the petitioners have been adequately dealt with. The point of contention is that applications relating to additional provisions should not be admitted. The case for not admitting additional provisions is set out in Appendix 2 of the Select Committee report, which gives details of the precedent set by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, when he was chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill. I will quote from the appendix, which contains a statement made by the chair of the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill. Paragraph 7 says:
“Those adversely affected by an additional provision ordered in the House of Lords as the second house would be denied that opportunity in the Commons as the first house unless the bill were to be returned to a Select Committee of the House of Commons with all the delays and additional expense that this would give rise to. As a matter of practical reality, almost every additional provision which solves or mitigates difficulties for one group of residents along the line raises new difficulties for another group. That is why petitions against additional provisions are permitted and why parliamentary practice regards it as unfair for additional provisions to be introduced in the House of Lords as the second house.”
The statement goes on to say that the committee considered the applicability of a Transport and Works Act order and came to the conclusion that it was highly related to the concept of additional provisions and that it should not be admitted.
We support the current parliamentary practice and, if my noble friend Lord Berkeley were to seek to divide the House, he would not receive support from our Benches. I would have hoped that what might come out of this would be some reflection by the Government and the House to make the procedures and customs of the House on hybrid Bills clearer. Nevertheless, we think that they are clear enough to reject this amendment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate—an hors d’oeuvre to the main course yet to come. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and other noble Lords are aware, the Bill has already been carefully scrutinised by a Select Committee of this House. That committee was convened under the rules for private and hybrid Bills and was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, to whom we are very grateful and who unfortunately cannot be with us today.
In its report, the Select Committee discussed whether such a committee can make an amendment to the Bill that extends the powers of the promoter—in this case, HS2 Ltd—such as powers to compulsorily acquire land. Such an amendment to a private Bill is known as an additional provision. The Select Committee report states:
“As a matter of practical reality, almost every additional provision which solves or mitigates difficulties for one group of residents along the line raises new difficulties for another group.”
The Select Committee therefore concluded that amendments that extend powers would not be appropriate.
Those adversely affected by an additional provision in the first House have the opportunity to petition against it in that House and in the second House. As both HS2 Select Committees in this House—for this Bill and for phase 1—have noted, it would not be fair to allow amendments in the second House, unless those affected by it could also petition in both Houses. The consequence of this, however, would be that hybrid Bills would be for ever doomed to travel from a Select Committee in one House to another Select Committee in the other and back again in never-ending ping-pong.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, acknowledged all that in Grand Committee, yet here we have an amendment to send the Bill off to another but different type of Select Committee. This proposed Select Committee would have no powers at all to amend the Bill and the process would cause many months of delay to the Bill and create even more uncertainty for residents and businesses along the proposed route. At some point this must stop, a line must be drawn and a decision taken about the construction of this railway. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I did not get wholehearted support; I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her support. I do not think this has been in vain because some noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, in particular, have recognised that perhaps the system needs to be looked at, but not in the environment I started this afternoon. I apologise for that. I wanted to have a debate on Transport and Works Act orders, which we have not had, but we can follow that up some other way.
Several noble Lords have told me that I oppose the HS2 project and that this is only a delaying tactic; I want to put that on record. It would not be a delaying tactic if we had been allowed to talk about Transport and Works Act orders, which we are not under the current procedures. I have said many times that I am in favour of new railways, pretty obviously. My problem with HS2 is that it has turned out over the years to be overspecified and the costs have got completely out of control. The money could be much better spent on the regional railways in the north and the Midlands.
Also for the record, I am not criticising the Select Committee. I have said before that it has done a great job. I am not criticising its selection or its chair. My advice from the clerks certainly is that the second House on the occasion of a hybrid Bill is not a revising Chamber; it is a second Select Committee equal to the first one in its ability. If, by any conceivable chance, a hybrid Bill on a railway started in your Lordships’ House, the House of Commons would become the second House. That could be an interesting discussion and probably would not go down very well.
However, my main concern has been and still is that the Transport and Works Act order process is included in Clause 49 of this Bill but the extent to which it may be used appears to be in the Government’s hands rather than those of the committee, in spite of what has been said. I hope we can continue this discussion in your Lordships’ House on an occasion less time-constrained than this Bill and try and get it right for the next one. I hope there is another one coming. My noble friend Lord Adonis thinks it is going to come within the next six months. We will see whether that is the case. Whether it is or not, I think we need to resolve this and the many things we have discussed.
I did threaten to divide the House but, in deference to the amount of work we have to discuss this afternoon, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Adonis
“( ) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the Government’s plans for a Bill providing for the construction of a high-speed railway from the West Midlands directly to Sheffield and Leeds.”
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I had hoped that it would not be necessary for me to detain the House this afternoon because the noble Baroness, whom we hold in very high regard, would accept this amendment. However, I do not think that she is going to accept it so, alas, I will have to detain the House for a few minutes in putting forward the case for it. It is fundamental to the whole of the high-speed rail project that it should serve not just the West Midlands and the north-west but the East Midlands and Yorkshire. If it is a project just for one half of the country, it will by definition leave the other half behind.
If we just build a high-speed line up to Manchester and do not build a new railway up to Sheffield and Leeds and connecting on to the east coast main line, then—coming back to the Victorians—this would be the equivalent of the Victorians building a railway up to Manchester but leaving the canals to serve Sheffield and Leeds. It is fundamental to the project that it serves both halves of the country, and the great danger at the moment is that the Government are on track to cancelling or severely delaying the eastern part of the project. The Minister is not able to accept this amendment, which simply requires the Government to come forward with legislation for the eastern leg at the same time as that for the western leg. It was always integral to HS2 that phase 2b—the extension of the line north from Birmingham to Manchester—should take place at the same time as the extension of the line north-east from Birmingham to Sheffield and Leeds.
All that this proposal seeks—there is strong cross-party support for it—is to hold the Government to the original conception of HS2, which they have said they accept and have not actually said they reject. However, they will not take the steps required to deliver it. Those of us who know how government works know that when the Government do not rule out an option but refuse to take the practical steps required to deliver it, we should smell a rat and act accordingly. That is the purpose of this amendment.
The noble Baroness may drag the rug from under my feet and tell me that the Government are definitely committed to introducing legislation for the eastern leg of HS2 to Sheffield and Leeds at the same time as the Manchester legislation. If she says that, I will gladly withdraw my amendment. If she says that she is prepared to consider doing that between now and Third Reading I will go the last mile to reach consensus with her and withdraw this amendment. However, if she cannot give that commitment, then the House would be reasonable in concluding that the reason she will not is because the Government are contemplating cancelling the eastern leg of HS2 outright. This will undermine the integrity of the project. It will not be levelling up. By definition, it will level down for the East Midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east and we should carry this amendment today.
I am very glad to have the support of some of the speakers who will follow me. I would like to call the noble Lord, Lord Curry, my noble friend because he and I spent many months together on the economic inquiry into the future of the north-east, some five years ago. He is a very powerful champion of the north-east and completely understands the vital importance of the eastern leg of HS2, not just to the cities that it directly serves—Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds—but to the east coast main line going further north-east.
My noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, are very powerful champions for the city of Sheffield. I am told that I have managed a near-miraculous feat in uniting them this afternoon, which I am delighted to see. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, to the House, particularly as he has now joined the club of former Transport Secretaries, which is the most distinguished club in the House. He was an immensely distinguished Transport Secretary and carried the HS2 project forward for more than three years. It is in no small part due to him personally that we are debating the Bill this afternoon.
This is not a party matter at all; the rhetoric of the Government is about levelling up and bringing the benefits of high-speed rail. We will hear all these phrases from the Minister in a moment. She is already nodding—she has them in the brief in front of her. The benefits of high-speed rail should be extended to the east Midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east. You cannot have the benefits of high-speed rail extended to the east Midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east unless they actually have high-speed rail. She will also have in her brief that rail should be integrated; they have this thing called the integrated rail plan, which we will hear lots about. Well, you cannot integrate nothing with something. King Lear had the answer to that one three centuries ago, or whatever it was:
“Nothing will come of nothing.”
If there is no high-speed line going to Sheffield and Leeds and connecting to the east coast main line, there is nothing to integrate. If the Minister wants an integrated rail plan and she wants the benefits of high-speed rail extended to the east Midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east, I am afraid there is only one way to do it: build the high-speed rail line through to Toton—the junction station between Derby and Nottingham—and to Sheffield, Leeds and the north-east.
I do not want to detain the House unduly. I set out all these arguments in Grand Committee. I even changed my amendment, in intense consultation with the clerks, to meet the objection of the Minister that we might delay the project; there is nothing I would less want to do. The form of this amendment involves no delay to the construction of the railway line from Birmingham to Crewe because it simply requires that “within six months” of the passage of the Act, the Government should come forward with plans for legislation for the eastern leg.
I end with two key points, so that your Lordships understand the vital importance of the proposition we are talking about today. If high-speed rail proceeds only to Manchester, and does not proceed to Sheffield and Leeds, when HS2 is completed the journey time from London to Manchester will be one hour, from London to Sheffield, and to Leeds, it will be two hours, and from London to Newcastle it will be three hours. Do I need to explain to your Lordships what the impact will be on business location decisions and the whole economic future of the country if that situation applies to these cities for most of the 21st century? If we are about building one nation, giving equal opportunity and incentives for all parts of the country to grow, and giving these phenomenally important cities of the east Midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east an opportunity to compete on a level playing field with the western cities of the country, then we must pass this amendment today. If we get into a situation where HS2 is only half-built, it will be the equivalent of the great Victorian pioneers building railways in the western part of the country only and leaving the whole of the eastern part with canals. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind all noble Lords in the Chamber to maintain social distancing for everyone’s safety. I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, whose commitment to HS2 is very well known. I must say that I am impressed with his tie. I have a pair of socks which I clearly need to donate to him to match. As the noble Lord has mentioned, I have the honour of being a member of a commission which was established by the North East LEP and which was chaired by the noble Lord about five years ago. It was a revealing exercise even for someone like myself, who has lived in the north-east all my life.
It is almost slightly irritating for those of us who live in the far north of England—the north-east or the north-west—that, when viewed from London or the south-east, the north begins somewhere north of Nottingham and stretches to Sheffield and Manchester, while the vast area of England beyond that disappears into a fog and is too often regarded by those who live there as being neglected and ignored. This is the case with the existing plans for HS2. I have never regarded HS2 as just an attempt to deliver passengers from Euston to Birmingham 15 minutes earlier than is the case at present, but as a necessary investment to increase the capacity of the rail network. It is essential that the increased capacity planned is extended further north, beyond the current plan.
The north-east has some interesting and contrasting economic features. On the one hand, the region has one of the highest, if not the highest, proportion of GVA being exported of any English region, thanks to some very large companies such as Nissan. On the other hand, the north-east has some of the lowest indices in England, whether it be unemployment, average income levels, many social indicators, productivity and so on. For all these reasons—whether to support existing successful businesses or to help level up and address the long-standing economic and social issues—we need a commitment from Her Majesty’s Government to extend HS2 from the West Midlands to Leeds, as this amendment suggests, so that Yorkshire and the north-east can look forward to improved connectivity to assist in economic growth and address many of these long-seated social problems.
We all welcome the Government’s relatively recent announcement to invest in a whole range of infrastructure projects in the north. Many of these have been on our wish list for decades and are an important start to address the levelling-up commitment of the Government, but there is a very long way to go to satisfy the residents of the north of England. Supporting this amendment to extend HS2 would be a further, and very important, welcome step by the Government; it would show that they are committed to supporting the north and delivering an integrated rail network, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has very effectively outlined. It is essential to improve access and assist in delivering economic growth. I do hope that the Minister will change her mind and accept this amendment.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and his passion for the north. I probably have to disappoint both the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Adonis, as I do not have the sartorial elegance of the socks of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and I definitely do not have a tie like that of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
It is ironic that the day that we are having to debate this amendment is the first day in the north that we do not have Pacer trains—a change promised for a couple of years, and 35 years later we were still travelling along on “trucks on rails” as they were called. It is ironic that, on the day that we thought things were moving forward, we are here seeking a commitment from the Government—not just warm words but a commitment—to make sure that our railways in the north on the eastern leg are equivalent to what is going to happen up to Manchester.
There is a history of warm words from the Government and then things not happening, particularly on the Midland main line. I remember—I think I was a local councillor in Sheffield at the time—being told that we were going to have electrification of the Midland main line. That was stolen from us. We were told, “No, you don’t need that anymore. We’re going to have some modern hybrid trains running off hydrogen”—trains that do not exist to perform what is actually needed. So, the Minister can stand at that Dispatch Box and give us all the warm words in the world; the fact is, people in Sheffield and Leeds will not believe the promises. They will look at this amendment and wonder why a firm commitment could not be given to bring forward a plan, through law, and why we cannot get the equivalent of what is happening up on the western leg.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to lend my support to my noble friend Lord Adonis and his well-crafted amendment, and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and—yes—the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. On a number of occasions this year, he and I have found ourselves in agreement: I am not sure whether that is bad for him or bad for me, but on this occasion we are wholeheartedly as one. That is because we have seen what has happened over the years. He mentioned electrification of the Midland main line. Christopher Grayling promised it, and within months he withdrew that promise. It is similar to the picture painted by George Orwell of promising, withdrawing and promising again until people were completely bamboozled and befuddled as to what they had been promised and what had been taken away. I counsel my noble friend Lord Adonis to be very careful in hearing, as I am sure that he will be, the words of the Minister, for whom we have the greatest respect but who has been given a government brief. If the brief is not to say, “Yes, of course we intend to go ahead with this and we will, therefore, be quite happy to publish our legislation,” then I hope we will move this to a Division.
There are three sets of people who helped the Government. One set are those who were against HS2 from the start. I understand why: they believe that the money should be redeployed elsewhere. There is a second set who say: “We do not mind you doing the north-west, but we are quite happy for you to give us the money for infrastructure work and other investment in Yorkshire and the north-east.” The third set says, “Do not rock the boat, because we do not want to be seen to be undermining phase 2a and the subsequent leg to Manchester because it would be grossly unfair.” All three are just so naive that it is breath-taking. It is breath-taking to suggest that money that would not be spent on HS2 would, in any way, be spent on other forms of infrastructure in the two decades to come. It is naive to believe that, if you give a fair wind to someone else, they will back you when they got what they wanted and you failed to get what you needed. It is naive to believe that a Government who will not commit to what they originally promised have somehow just mislaid the necessary words and are not intent on changing policy or their programme.
My great fear—and I have had it all along—is that we will, of course, get Crewe to Manchester, and we will get the fast HS2 line from Manchester to Leeds, so that the Leeds leg will be an extremely rapid cross-Pennine addition, but it will not be from Birmingham through the east Midlands and Yorkshire with the spur to the east coast main line and to the north-east. I worry about MPs from the north-east—many of them very new, and this is true of the east Midlands as well—who seem to live in a parallel universe where they believe that words do not say what they actually say, as Alice would have said in Wonderland. Unless you get it on paper and it is absolutely unequivocal, it is not going to happen. The east Midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east will lose out all over again.
The briefing notes sent out were very interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, talked about people from London and the south thinking that the world stopped at Sheffield. I wish that they did believe that, but they think it stops at Watford. When they use terms, as were included in this briefing note, such as “the north” or “the northern powerhouse,” what they clearly mean is the north-west or Greater Manchester and the surrounding areas. That is what George Osborne believed, which was understandable from his point of view because at the time he represented a seat in the north-west.
It is time for the leaders of councils, the elected mayors and the Members of Parliament of every party from the east Midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east to start collaborating in order to have their voice heard; otherwise, they will find themselves conned. Once again, they will be seen as losers and I am sick of us being losers on the east of the Pennines: I want the north and the northern powerhouse to be right across what is the north of England. I want that promise of 30 million people benefiting to be not some sort of artificial myth: I want it to be a reality. It can be a reality only if we actually get this additional leg, promised from the beginning, through the east Midlands, which has a high density of passenger usage, which will then be accommodated by freeing up the existing services. That is the argument in Stoke and Macclesfield in the north-west; it works just as well for the east Midlands and Yorkshire, where there is high-density passenger mileage in this particular corridor. Let us unite in wanting to do something that at last will put the nation in better balance—not only the levelling up that is so often talked about but levelling up between the north-west and north-east of the Pennines as well.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to address the House on what I believe is a very important infrastructure project, one of the biggest undertaken by any Government in recent years. I have a slight worry about the amendment as tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, which is that it would put too much of a straitjacket on the Government regarding the future proposals that need to be ironed out. However, I find myself with a lot of sympathy for it.
I myself as Secretary of State for Transport made many changes to the plans put forward by the noble Lord when he did his initial scoping project, which was then carried on. Not the least of those changes is in the Bill before us. This part of the Bill came about as a result of the review done for me by David Higgins about how we could get it to the north faster, because there was a lot of concern that we would build up to Birmingham and then it would stop there. So I am delighted to be able to partake in these proceedings in this House on this section of the project that I think I started off.
I was fascinated to hear the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, talk about the end of the Pacer trains. It reminded me of my time as Secretary of State: it was I who issued the instruction to the Permanent Secretary to override the advice of the department, which said that we could not possibly get rid of the Pacer trains as there was no financial case. I am very pleased that that has been done. It has been delayed slightly, but these things take a bit of time. Still, at long last those trains, which were brought in 40 years ago on a temporary basis, will cease to exist. I have to say I was surprised that there was no “Save the Pacer train” movement, because the rail industry can sometimes become very nostalgic, keeping everything in the past. As far as I know, there has been no such movement.
I did not get the exact wording of the Minister’s answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but she said it was time to get on with the Bill and not accept any more delays. I reinforce that to her: it is time to get on with the whole project in so far as it goes at the moment, because even the line up to Leeds and Manchester is not really the full project. It is only the start of the project of modernising our railway network. I find it ironic that I can get a high-speed train from London to Paris or Brussels, but not to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh or Glasgow. That is the dream; we have to ensure that future generations get their own high-speed rail.
I regret the words “high-speed rail”. It is not about high speed, but about high capacity. One of the things that this railway does is release a lot of the capacity on other railway lines to fulfil some of the more desirable things that areas want. We have seen a modern revolution in rail travel in this country. At the time of privatisation, 700 million people a year were using our railways. Last year, before the outbreak of the Covid pandemic, the figure was something like 1.8 billion people. Railways have become a much more important part of our nation and of our cities. I believe that the Bill and the Government committing to going as far as Crewe is essential, but there is more about it that is essential. The line was always planned to be a Y shape. The most expensive part of the railway was actually building it from London to Birmingham and then its costs fall away a little, although I fully accept that it is still a very expensive project.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I put my name down to speak on this amendment because it seemed the one opportunity that I would have today to give general support to HS2, the Bill and this amendment, obviously, as opposed to the other amendments, which I consider to be wrecking amendments. I would be somewhat more negative about them. I did not have the opportunity to speak in earlier debates.
It gives me pleasure that, having spoken some years ago in favour of the London to Birmingham part, I have an opportunity to support the idea of the total concept outlined by my noble friend Lord Adonis and the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, who we have just heard from: the one-nation aspect of the project. It was never about London to Birmingham, but something much bigger. As has been said, it was not about speed either, but about capacity. However, for the first couple of years the PR was somewhat negative.
The Minister has heard pleas from others and I join them, although I understand the position that she is in and what she will want to say. By the way, I found there were occasions when it was possible to make policy at the Dispatch Box when replying in the Lords because of the pressure that you were under, and it helped to stave off a defeat. I always used to tell my Secretary of State when I went back, “I had to give way on that otherwise we would have been defeated.” By and large that was generally accepted, so there is a capacity to do that.
What the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said about the last days of the Pacer trains is ironic. I remember that when I travelled around the country as a Minister, I was on one of those Pacer trains. I had never heard of them or seen them before. I cannot remember when it was; it was in my MAFF days so I am going back 20 years. I could not believe there were carriages like that on the railways, and of course there still were 20 years later. In some ways this is a bad day, because without the amendment the people of the north and north-east will feel as though they have been left behind.
I do not intend to speak for long. One of the most powerful points that the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, just made was about the blight. Everybody knows what the original plans were; they have seen the Y shape of the line. All of a sudden that has disappeared. The blight that that will leave on housing, industry, the movement of people and investment in particular will be massive. It is very difficult to put a cost on blight but it is very negative. Whatever the outcome is today, the Minister needs to point out to the department and the Government that it is in no one’s interest to have part of the country blighted in the way that that part will be if there is no government plan.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, entirely and all other noble Lords who have spoken. There are two things I want to mention because of my knowledge of the railway. If we do not get this addition to HS2 to the north-east, journeys will be very much slower than they would otherwise be. An HS2 train going from Toton through to Leeds will take 27 minutes; at the moment it takes 85 minutes by conventional railway. For Newcastle, the difference is between 93 and 160 minutes. It really is about putting the country together. There is no way that the existing infrastructure will be able to provide anything like what will be offered by HS2.
The second issue, which is very pertinent, and to which other noble Lords have referred, is the appalling standard of social mobility, education and health that pervade the area north of Toton, going up toward Sheffield and Leeds. HS2 will bring great opportunities. Lots of people will locate their industries and research institutions alongside HS2. It does not even have to built; it has to be promised, but promised faithfully, and people will move there in anticipation. The flow of education and training will bring hope to many people in that area who have abandoned hope. Some of the comments that people make about what it is like to live in these towns and villages show that they are pretty hopeless.
I implore the Government, for the sake of sensibly levelling up, to give this scheme the approval that it needs. I am afraid that if it is turned down, people will give up hope as their hopes have been so often dashed in that part of Britain.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who is a most distinguished retired railway manager. He was working for the railway for many years in the last century, and he was a very prominent figure in the industry when I was working for the Board in the 1970s and 1980s.
This has been a remarkable debate in that every single speaker has spoken in favour of the amendment tabled by noble friend Lord Adonis, with cross-party support. I find it very heartening that there is such support for High Speed 2 across the House, and indeed in the other place as well. It is right that the Minister has been praised for backing it so wholeheartedly. I hope that she will not disappoint us when she responds to the debate and gives her view on what happens to this amendment.
May I correct one thing that the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, said about Pacers? He may not be aware of it, but there is a Pacer rail group, dedicated to buying at least one of these trains. There are Pacers in use on heritage railways now, and there will be one in the National Railway Museum. If he redevelops a wish to see Pacers, they will be around for some while yet, although happily not on the national network.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on supporting the railways of Britain, not just through the present emergency but committing to their expansion in the future as well. That is why it is important that these good intentions are not undermined in the case of the eastern link of High Speed 2. There is a cross-party consensus that increasing the capability, the capacity and the use of the national electrified rail network is crucial to delivering the Government’s zero carbon agenda. No other transport project comes as close to achieving that goal as High Speed 2. Travelling on High Speed 2 will emit almost seven times fewer carbon emissions per passenger kilometre than the equivalent car journey, and 17 times fewer than the equivalent domestic flight.
Part of the essential case for High Speed 2 is the need to create new capacity on the three main lines going north from Euston, St Pancras and King’s Cross to allow substantial numbers of extra freight trains to run on them. The eastern branch of HS2, connecting Birmingham and the cities of the East Midlands with Sheffield and Leeds is, therefore, vital. We know from the 10-year experience of modernising the west coast main line earlier this century that attempting to create a 21st-century railway by tinkering with a Victorian one creates years of disruption, delay and increased cost. The situation would be as bad or worse if the same were to be tried with the Midland main line and the east coast main line, rather than building the eastern leg of High Speed 2.
I finish with a comment from the director of Transport for the North, Tim Wood, in an interview with Modern Railways magazine in the current edition. He said that the eastern leg is as important as the 2b route to Crewe, Manchester and Liverpool:
“We all welcome the move, as further progress in delivering a step change for rail travel in the north. The plans to integrate the network on the east of the Pennines need full commitment and to be progressed at speed as well.”
I do hope that the Minister will agree, and that she will accept the amendment.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I am a supporter of this project and congratulate previous speakers on their support for the amendment. I suspect that the amendment comes about as a result of almost a throwaway line from the Minister in Committee. She said, to my surprise—and, I note, the surprise of my noble friend Lord Adonis and, I suspect, some other members of the Committee—that the eastern leg of the high-speed network would mean more than one Bill. I think she said at least two Bills would be needed in order to go ahead. That rang alarm bells, certainly so far as my noble friend Lord Adonis was concerned, and he questioned the Minister. Like my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who spoke earlier, I fear that if we were to have more than one Bill to take the eastern leg forward, there could be not just a delay but a cancellation of part of what was proposed as part of the original Y-shaped HS2 system. That, as my noble friend Lord Blunkett said, in his memorable speech, would be disastrous for cities such as Sheffield and Leeds, and also for those of us who want to see HS2 continue beyond there and on to the east coast main line, and then further north.
There are worrying rumours, which I hope the Minister can deny, that, as was also said earlier, the intention will be to run a piece of the eastern leg as far as Toton and expect those travelling to Leeds and Sheffield to go via Manchester, through a connection between the proposed HS2 western leg as far as Manchester, and a new HS3—or whatever name one likes to give it—taking the railway forward across the east of England towards Sheffield and Leeds. I live in the city of Birmingham and, although hardly a native of it, as one might be able to tell from my accent, if I were going to Sheffield and Leeds I would not necessarily want to go via Manchester—a city for which I have great admiration, as I was born and brought up in the Manchester area and served on a local authority there.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, would accept that I am as enthusiastic as he is about the potential of the HS2 project. I recognise the intention behind his amendment but, despite the softened wording, it seems to have “delay” written all over it. That is not because he intends it but because it is something which opponents will feel invigorated by. We shall have the arguments developing again, with new and ingenious ways found of suggesting difficulties so far as phase 2a is concerned. I am doubtful about the amendment’s wording and the Government should not be imprisoned by it.
However, from a practical point of view, first, if we agree to put into law the phase 2A project from the West Midlands to Crewe, this will add to momentum as we are already beginning to see the benefits in the West Midlands through investment and job creation. It will enthuse more people on the east of the Pennines to expect that these benefits should come their way, and that the people who represent them should recognise that as well. Secondly, there is a political imperative for the Government here. So much has been said about levelling up that to level only one side of the Pennines and not the other would be seen as a considerable let-down, to use as mild a word as I can.
I understand that one of the principal arguments about having more railways is to deal with the capacity issue. At the same time, we should not brush aside the importance of the speed of journeys. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, reminded us a short while ago, there are some pretty horrendous journey times between east and west and these need to be improved, because of the barrier that they represent. Yes, but so too is the difference between north and south; the more we can shorten times there, the more chance we have of levelling up and spreading investment, jobs and housing, at the same time as easing pressures off the south-east while bringing huge benefits to the north of England.
Quite frankly, the Government must indicate that they accept this logic of dealing evenly with Lancashire, Cheshire and Staffordshire on the one hand, and the East Midlands, Yorkshire and beyond—further north—on the other. For those east and west of the Pennines, this must be seen to have equal benefit. It will be a great shame if the Government do not make it clear that that is exactly what they intend by developing the whole of HS2.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I add my support for my noble friend Lord Adonis’s amendment. I remember that when he first brought forward HS2 as Transport Secretary it was as a concept for this new Y-shaped spine, which would dramatically transform connectivity between London, the Midlands and the north. This concept has stood 11 years of the most severe examination. This afternoon, we have an opportunity to tell the Government that they cannot replace a north-south divide in this country with an east-west divide, and that both parts of this scheme should go ahead.
We were in economic difficulty at the point when my noble friend Lord Adonis first proposed HS2. We had just been through the financial crisis and the banking meltdown yet, at a time of great fiscal difficulty, here were a Government putting forward a transformative scheme for the country. One of the great things about it was that my noble friend Lord Adonis was able to secure cross-party backing for the whole concept. That is why it survived throughout the decade of the 2010s, first with the coalition and then with the Conservative Governments.
The need for this giant step forward in connectivity in Britain is even more compelling today than it was in 2009, because, since then, regional inequalities have grown. We have Brexit, which, whatever we think of it, will cause problems for regions in the north and Midlands that are heavily dependent on manufacturing. Now we have the prospect of permanent scarring of our economy as a result of the Covid crisis. One thing on which I think we can all support the present Government is their aspiration for levelling up. If we take that aspiration seriously, what on earth is the case for losing heart on this tremendous concept of transforming connectivity in England?
The economic argument holds true. Across Europe and North America, cities are the most dynamic places of productivity, growth, innovation and opportunity. Bringing cities together through better transport connections will increase and multiply those benefits. I saw some data the other day that suggested how the big cities of Britain were all much less productive than their comparators on the continent. This transformative proposal for connectivity would help reverse that. The imperative to go ahead is as strong as it ever was.
I speak as someone who does not live directly on the line. My dad was a railway clerk in Carlisle. When I was a lad, I think there were four express trains during the day from Carlisle to London. The first one left at 8.30 am and got you into Euston just before 5 pm. It was quite nice, of course, because if you could afford it, you could have both lunch and tea in the restaurant car, but it was an exceptionally long journey in the 1950s. Now, as a result of the west coast main line modernisation, the journey time has been reduced to three hours and 20 minutes. With HS2, it should be reduced further to around two and a half hours. Just to show how these things link together, one of the proposals of the borderlands project, which the Government last week agreed should be accelerated, is to spend the money on making sure that the platforms at Carlisle station are long enough to take HS2.
This scheme can affect most parts of Britain in a positive way. We should not go back on it now.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I join every other noble Lord who has spoken in reminding the House that services between Birmingham, Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds are pretty awful at the moment. They are very slow, they are probably unreliable, and they do not help with the levelling-up agenda, “one nation”—as my noble friend Lord Adonis called it—or anything else. It is easy to reflect now on whether the Government should have gone for phase 2b east before they went for 2a, but it is too late for that, and does it really matter?
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, we received a useful briefing from HS2 prior to this debate. The final sentences read:
“Legislation to complete the Western leg of HS2 into Manchester is expected to come forward in 2022. Extending the line to Crewe is the first step to making this happen.”
There is a total absence of any reference there to the eastern leg. Other speakers have talked about the regenerative impact of HS2. This has already been demonstrated in Birmingham despite the line not being built yet. It is already a hotspot for inward investment, with high-quality jobs being created in major banks—HSBC and Deutsche Bank—as well as, importantly, in Jacobs Engineering.
The Government’s election rhetoric on levelling up won them seats in the north-east, and HS2 is an essential part of that. It is integral to delivering the plans of both the northern powerhouse and the Midlands engine. That means the whole of HS2; as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, without the eastern leg it will be unable to improve the transport links across the country and to create new freight capacity.
This is all essential if the Government are to be able to decarbonise our transport system. Much more important than higher speeds is the capacity that HS2 will unlock. Only a very small percentage of commuters currently use rail in the north of England. For example, 7% of people commuting from Liverpool to Manchester, and 3% going from Hull to Sheffield, use rail. That is because services are slow and unreliable. HS2 will provide additional capacity on existing lines by freeing them up to enable faster, modern trains to provide many more services. Trains are the most carbon-efficient mass transport system available.
Existing rail freight services are far too slow. Freight is the most challenging part of our transport system to decarbonise. Road freight accounts for 5% of our nation’s CO2 emissions, so it has to be tackled. For example, it now takes 11 hours to send freight by rail from Liverpool to Selby, for the Drax power station. That is an unrealistically long time. It takes only three hours to take the same load by road. The Government cannot hope to improve productivity and create well-paid jobs in the north, while meeting our climate commitments, without revolutionising the infrastructure of the region. HS2 is the key to that—freeing us from reliance on a 19th-century rail system that is literally buckling under the strain.
What we need from the Minister today is a firm and unequivocal commitment to the eastern leg, with a timeframe that puts it on an equal footing with the west. We will be listening very carefully but, much more importantly, the people of the north-east are listening. They will not forgive, or forget, any attempt to renege on election promises. As noble Lords have made clear this afternoon, the case for the eastern leg has been made perfectly over the years. It is now well overdue for work to start on the details of this project.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I do not intend to repeat all the points made so persuasively by my noble friend Lord Adonis and other noble Lords in support of his amendment. The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2019 election said that:
“HS2 is a great ambition”,
but, as we all know, great ambitions are not always realised in full. The manifesto went on to say that HS2,
“will now cost at least £81 billion and will not reach Leeds or Manchester until as late as 2040.”
Continuing, the manifesto said that:
“We will consider the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings and work with leaders of the Midlands and the North to decide the optimal outcome”.
In other words, there was no unambiguous commitment in the 2019 manifesto to complete HS2 via the East Midlands to Leeds, since the “optimal outcome” was dependent on government consideration of the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe invited the Government to commit to building HS2 phase 2b to Leeds in full. In reply, the Government said that:
“Plans to provide the benefits of high-speed rail to the east Midlands, Yorkshire and beyond will be confirmed following the publication of the integrated rail plan”,
and,
“that a properly connected line from the Midlands up to the North will be a key part of the HS2 project.”—[Official Report, 9/11/20; col. GC 351.]
As we know, that reply was not a commitment to build HS2 phase 2b via the East Midlands to Leeds in full.
It would thus be helpful if the Government could clarify in their response what the phrases,
“plans to provide the benefits of high-speed rail to the east Midlands, Yorkshire and beyond”,
and,
“a properly connected line from the Midlands up to the North will be a key part of the HS2 project”,
actually mean. Do they mean that the Government are committed to building HS2 phase 2b via the East Midlands to Leeds in full, or do they mean not that the high-speed line will be built the whole way from Birmingham via the East Midlands to Leeds but that HS2 services could, for all or part of that journey, run over existing routes calling at existing stations?
The indications are that the Government are either looking to abandon or scale back the eastern leg of HS2 through to Leeds or, at best, seriously delay its construction and completion. The lack of a clear commitment to the HS2 project in full calls into question the Government’s declared commitment to levelling up, since the eastern leg is just as vital as the delivery of the western leg. Levelling up cannot just mean levelling up the north-west and the West Midlands. It is just as vital to communities in the East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-east. Indeed, only proceeding with the western leg would leave the cities and areas that would have been served by the eastern leg at a disadvantage.
The Government now have the opportunity to put to rest any concerns over their commitment to the eastern leg by saying, in their response today, that they are committed to the construction and bringing into operation of HS2 phase 2b to Leeds via the East Midlands in full, and giving the date by which they intend it will be completed. The Government can also accept the terms of this amendment. We will now have to see if they intend to take that opportunity. It will be for my noble friend Lord Adonis to decide whether he is satisfied with the Government’s response but, if he does decide to call for a vote, we will be supporting him.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I did a tally the other day; there are currently nine former Transport Secretaries in your Lordships’ House and I appreciate the wisdom of each and every one of them, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I thank him for his amendment and hope that I will be able to satisfy him today. I will go as far as I possibly can. I hope that he will listen carefully to my words and take as much comfort from them as he is able. All noble Lords will recognise his enthusiasm for and commitment to HS2. I have read the amendment extremely carefully, but suggest that there is no need for it, as I hope to explain. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the Government’s plans for the HS2 eastern leg will be set out in the integrated rail plan and that this will be laid before Parliament within the timeframe referred to in the amendment. I make that commitment to the House today.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no other requests to speak, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, there was a rare degree of unanimity in the House, and I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken with a very great degree of passion. I think there is a great sense among noble Lords that the future of the country is at stake in the way that we proceed with HS2, just as the country that we live in today was to a very substantial extent shaped by those great Victorian railways and the way that they connected—or, in some cases, failed to connect—the great cities of our nation. The decisions that we take in Parliament over the next year or two on HS2 will shape the whole future of this country over the next century. Therefore, even though this has been a lengthy debate, I think it has been an important one, and hugely important for the direction of the country.
I said there has been near unanimity. I am afraid that the noble Baroness’s words do not go far enough; let me just do an exegesis on her words so that noble Lords are very clear about what she said. She said: “The Government have been very clear that the Prime Minister’s plans for the eastern leg will be set out in the integrated rail plan.” However, the key question is: what are the Prime Minister’s plans? Giving a commitment to set out the Prime Minister’s plans is absolutely pointless, unless those plans commit to building the eastern leg of HS2, which the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, his successors as Transport Secretary and I, on behalf of the then Government in 2010, committed to bringing forward as an integrated plan. Absolutely central to the whole philosophy of HS2 for the future of the country from the outset was that it should serve both the western and eastern parts of the country, and not, as one noble Lord said, replace a north-south divide with an east-west divide.
If the noble Baroness, who, as I say, we hold in very great respect, could commit to bringing forward legislation on the eastern leg at the same time as the western leg—that there will be definite legislation at the same time—I will withdraw my amendment. Is that a commitment the noble Baroness can make? Alas, my noble friend Lord Rooker invited her to rise to the occasion, seize the moment and make a declaration from the Dispatch Box—
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord knows quite well that you could not do that in terms of the time taken to prepare the legislation. You could not do it.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, you absolutely could commit. The noble Baroness could commit now to introducing legislation for the eastern leg. If she is telling me that the problem is the precise time it takes, but that there will be a definite commitment to legislation to build HS2 to Sheffield and Leeds at the same time as to Manchester, she could rise a second time, since she has already risen once, and I will withdraw my amendment. Alas, silence reigns, I am afraid, on the Government Front Bench.
I shall come to the quick, since it is important we understand the gravity of the issues at stake. The situation, which is well known in the Department for Transport and among those with whom I speak, is as follows. Dominic Cummings tried to cancel HS2. To be blunt, he does not much like Governments of any form doing big projects, but he certainly does not like big state projects of this kind. He wrestled very hard with the Prime Minister after the last election to get him to cancel HS2 outright. The Prime Minister believes in big infrastructure projects. When I was Transport Secretary, I had big discussions with him. There are many things he has no fixed belief on, but he has been prepared to commit to big transport infrastructure projects that will connect the country. He was persuaded of the case for HS2, and when the decision had to be made in February about going ahead with the first phase of HS2, from London to Birmingham, he gave that commitment. What then happened was that Dominic Cummings moved on to the eastern leg, because the weakest of the BCRs—benefit to cost ratios—is for the eastern leg. The reason the weakest BCR is for the eastern leg is very straightforward: the cities served in the east of the country are smaller than those in the west. But we are supposed to be about levelling up. That is the whole philosophy of the Government. So the fact that the BCRs are lower for the east is not a reason for not proceeding with HS2 East; it is an essential reason for proceeding.
Dominic Cummings is no more. That is a great step forward, which is why the tone of the remarks from the noble Baroness is much more positive than it would have been if he was still running No. 10. We now have a problem with the Treasury. The Chancellor is wrestling with a difficult situation in the public finances—we all understand why—and he wants the option to cancel the eastern leg. This is what this big argument is about. It is the reason the Government will not proceed and give a firm commitment at the moment. This is what is at stake at the moment. That option is being exercised through the integrated rail plan. It would be short-sighted and a catastrophe for this country if the Government were to exercise that option, because it would mean we had 21st-century infrastructure serving the western parts of this country and 19th-century infrastructure serving the eastern parts. As much as I like the history of this country—I am delighted the Pacer trains are going to appear in the National Railway Museum—history belongs in history, and we should be seeking to address the present and future in this House.
The noble Baroness’s department is entirely at one with me. Indeed, in the secrecy of this House, I can say that the Government themselves, in respect of this Minister, are at one with me. This afternoon, this House has an opportunity to tell the half of the Government that agrees with me to use their heft to persuade the other half to come into alignment. The join between these two is the Prime Minister. That is the reason for backing this amendment today. It is not a small matter; it is fundamental to the future of this country that we build HS2 both east and west. If we are going to be one nation in the future, we need a one-nation transport and infrastructure system, and that is why I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 22: Burial grounds
Amendment 2
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, I will speak also to Amendments 3, 14 and 15 in my name. I rather regret not speaking on the previous debate, for two reasons. First, I would have been able to put to bed the idea that I am not supportive of high-speed rail. I support extending it; if not, what was the point of having just London to Birmingham? The second, perhaps more pressing, reason is to wish my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, who is not speaking on any of the other groups I am speaking on, a happy birthday. He reminded us of his innate good sense; he was the first Secretary of State for Transport to really mention that the issue of HS2 was capacity rather than high speed. I rather wish others had got there first.
I put these amendments down mainly as a result of the story around the memorial garden—arboretum, if you like—for Rennie Grove Hospice Care. Some trees were cut down that had plaques on them in memorial for children who had unfortunately died prematurely. We can all understand the hurt that that will have caused. I asked the Public Bill Office—I thank it for its help—how I could try to raise this. I do not intend to put any of these amendments to a vote, but I want some reassurance from my noble friend the Minister. I thank my noble friend, who has met with me on a couple of occasions, on the first of which I raised this issue, and our honourable friend Andrew Stephenson in the other place, who was also genuinely concerned about these reports. I have received a letter back.
There are a couple of issues on which we need some reassurance. I put “including trees” in Amendment 3 because one thing that occurred to me when looking through the Bill was that it refers to “monuments”, and I was not sure whether memorial trees count as monuments. I would like that clarified. If they do not, we should consider including them, because they are now very common—particularly when we are trying to have tree-planting, as they are a way of combining the memorial with doing something good for the environment. The Woodland Trust has done a lot in that capacity.
I tabled Amendment 2, saying that remains must have been buried for “at least one year”, and other amendments in my name because I could foresee a situation where some people might suddenly claim that a tree that had been planted had become a memorial. That is why there must be a timescale. Protestors—I have sympathy with some of them, though not all—might come up with innovative ways to try to impede this. If there is a memorial tree, I want it to be absolutely genuine.
The other amendments would ensure that the undertaker—a slightly unfortunate use of the word here—has some responsibility to inform the deceased’s next of kin and to ensure that they give them ample time. The letter that was sent to me said that HS2 had given the hospice a month’s notice that these works would take place. I am not sure that a month’s notice is sufficient in this case, to be honest. I want to go round this course to see what can be done, because we do not want any repeats of this.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have little to add on this amendment, except to say that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which call for investigating the possibility of the railways as a means of getting workers to HS2 sites, are well worth considering. I hope the Minister will respond positively to them.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I raised in Committee the issue of burial grounds and monuments, and the way in which they are dealt with. I made it clear that mine was a probing amendment, and that my interest was in ensuring that there was encouragement for really good practice in this context. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has taken the opportunity to take the issue further, because undoubtedly the modern, environmentally friendly, way of creating a memorial frequently includes trees. I shall listen carefully to the reassurances that I hope the Minister will be able to give us.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have little to say on these amendments, other than to make a general comment on the subject of burial grounds and so on. It seems to me that the intent in HS2 Phase 2a Information Paper: Burial grounds is appropriate. There are some useful words about how things should go ahead, and it says:
“Any human remains affected by the Proposed Scheme will be treated with all due dignity, respect and care.”
As ever, with the relationships between HS2 and the wider community, the whole issue is a cultural one. If, working within these guidelines, HS2 is constantly positive in seeking solutions, there will be no problems. But if it hides behind officialdom, there may be problems. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some indication of how the Government will hold HS2 to account with regard to the tone and culture of the relationship between it, the wider public and, in particular, the representatives of the public in this sensitive area.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, in no other setting is it more important that HS2 works be undertaken with dignity, care and respect than when they impact human remains and monuments to the deceased. The works authorised by this Bill do not directly impact any known burial grounds or monuments. However, given that the construction of the scheme requires ground excavation, there is potential for human remains and associated monuments to be discovered. Such discoveries are most likely to be made as a result of archaeological investigation works. In such an event, Clause 23 and Schedule 20 provide for an appropriate process for carrying out the works required.
Amendment 2, moved by my noble friend Lord Randall, would remove the process in Clause 22 and Schedule 20 for burials that have been made less than one year before work commences. I state again that the phase 2a scheme, which we are considering today, does not impact any known burial grounds. It is highly unlikely that these works will impact any burial made under one year prior to their commencement. In any event, I believe that Clause 22, which applies to all burials, including those less than one year old, is appropriate. Therefore, I do not believe that my noble friend’s amendment is necessary.
The process set out in the Bill is founded on existing UK burial legislation, and ecclesiastical law and practice. The procedure in place to ensure compliance was discussed and agreed with the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England and Historic England. I must therefore resist my noble friend’s amendment.
Amendment 3, also in my noble friend’s name, would expand the scope of monuments and memorials to include trees. This would give such a memorial wood, or individual trees planted in memory of an individual, the same standing in legislation as, for instance, gravestones and war memorials.
It would be very difficult for any legislation to recognise such cases. In the UK there is no official record-keeping for memorial trees, and the Bill contains no controls for the designation of any trees as memorial trees. Furthermore, as there is no definition of a memorial tree, such a provision could, as I think my noble friend noted, be abused by individuals to hinder and delay construction works. Clearly, this would not be desirable. But we absolutely do agree that HS2 Ltd and its contractors must fully engage with those who may be impacted, sensitively and with due care. I know that my colleague, Minister Andrew Stephenson, will ensure that it is fully held to account in that regard.
As for the memorial woodland mentioned by my noble friend Lord Randall, I am aware of the case. As he knows, because we have corresponded about it, HS2 Ltd is supporting the hospice and the affected families, and will have discussions with the hospice and the landowner about creating a suitable memorial in this location once the works have concluded. Of course there will be lessons to be learned from this case, and from certain other cases. There are always lessons to be learned, and ways in which things could have been handled better. Minister Andrew Stephenson will ensure that those are carried across the phases of HS2. I sympathise with the intention to amend the Bill, but in terms of legislative proposals to address such issues, these proposals would not do the trick.
Finally, on Amendments 14 and 15, the Government are clear that due notice should be provided for any HS2 works impacting human remains or monuments to the deceased. There is a notice procedure already provided in the Bill for such works. It includes an eight-week period for next of kin to apply to remove human remains or monuments at the expense of HS2 Ltd. Prior to this notification procedure occurring, the programme of land acquisition will already have commenced. This requires notification to the owners of the land and all those with an interest in it. It would be highly unlikely that anybody with a private burial or associated monument on their land would not know what was to occur; they would know about the work well in advance.
I am sure my noble friend agrees that including a requirement to notify the next of kin “if possible” would not be workable. It would be incredibly difficult to determine what is or is not possible in notifying the next of kin. However, HS2 should be, and is, proactive in attempting to contact known next of kin, and places notices in local newspapers and at the site of burial. I understand the aims of my noble friend and reassure him that, where this process is in force for known burial grounds on phase 1 of HS2, it is working well.
Similarly, requiring notification to be given six months in advance of the works would also not be practical. Where burial grounds are identified, early notice is practical and possible. However, there are no burial grounds on phase 2a, and requiring works to cease for a mandatory six months would risk unnecessary delays in the construction programme and bringing into operation of phase 2a.
I must resist these amendments. I am aware of a couple of points of detail that my noble friend raised, so I will write to him. In resisting, I recognise the importance of this issue, the interest that has been shown across your Lordships’ House in what happens to both human remains and monuments, and the importance of memorial trees and other places special to friends and family. We will make sure that HS2 does whatever it can to make sure they are treated sensitively and with respect. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this short but important debate. I understand the issue about memorial trees not being recognised as monuments, but this is happening increasingly and we should be looking at it. This is not the Bill or place to do it, but this idea is becoming increasingly popular, and large monuments and gravestones are not being treated as they used to be.
I am grateful to my noble friend for committing to write to me. I particularly ask her to find out what happened to the plaques that were removed from those trees, because that is of great interest to me. With that said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 4. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 4
Lord Rosser
“Consultation with residents and stakeholders in relation to Phase 2a of High Speed 2 and associated works
(1) Before 1 May 2021, the Secretary of State must publish the report of a consultation with—(a) residents of the County of Shropshire, the County of Staffordshire, the County of Cheshire and any other areas deemed relevant by a Minister of the Crown, who may be impacted by the scheduled works, Phase 2a of High Speed 2, and associated works; and(b) any stakeholders deemed relevant by a Minister of the Crown.(2) The consultation must ask the views of residents and stakeholders listed in subsection (1) in regard to—(a) the impact of road traffic as a result of the works;(b) the impact of the works on the natural environment, including but not limited to the impact on ancient woodland;(c) whether there are sufficient transport provisions for the purposes of passengers connecting to Phase 2a of High Speed 2, and to address changes to general passenger movements caused by the works; and(d) if not, whether the construction of new railway stations and improvements to railway stations, including any associated reopening of lines, is necessary in relation to paragraph (c).(3) The report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and a Minister of the Crown must make a statement to both Houses detailing any steps which will be taken to implement the findings of the report.”
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Amendment 4 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, requires the Government to consult the affected people of Shropshire, Staffordshire and Cheshire on how the construction works for HS2 phase 2a will impact on their communities and the natural environment, and whether there is sufficient transport provision to enable passengers to connect to phase 2a of High Speed 2, including whether the construction of new railway stations, improvements to railway stations and reopening of lines is necessary and needed.
The Government would be required to produce a report before the beginning of May next year on the outcome of the consultation, and lay it before both Houses of Parliament with a statement to both Houses detailing any steps that would be taken to implement its findings. The amendment does not seek to tell the Government what their response to the consultation should be, simply that they should consult further on the issues mentioned and produce a report to Parliament.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have an entirely different point to make, which I believe the Minister will need to take into account as HS2 progresses: the question of the stations at the northern end, be they at Leeds or Manchester. I believe it has now been decided that the Manchester station should be capable of dealing with through-trains. At Leeds—I now speak in the name of the late Lord Shutt of Greetland, who was very strong on this issue—the idea of a terminal station that is a dead end is anathema to most railwaymen.
In order to get connectivity through a system, it is ideal to have platforms that allow through-trains to serve the larger stations because these are not the terminal points to which people want to go; they want to connect on further, and, in the case of Leeds, it will obviously be a desire to go on to Newcastle, York and, possibly, Scotland. I imagine that, when you get to Manchester, you will want to go on to Bradford and then to Leeds in the end.
In supporting this amendment, my plea is not about the small issues of connectivity, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has referred in his remarks, but about developing a network that is able to connect through to other places itself so that we maximise the possibility of HS2 and of it connecting with tram and express-bus systems, which are really needed to provide the integrated transport network that many people want.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, the only comment I wish to make on this amendment is to express surprise that some of the issues were not brought to the attention of the Select Committee by one means or another. We carried out a visit and saw some of the nature of the problems that could arise so far as road traffic was concerned, but it seemed to us, as the report indicates, that these were things that were being actively examined by HS2. We also felt that the lead on getting what was felt to be necessary for the benefit of local people should be taken by the local authorities. We were disposed to believe that they had some slack to take up in relation to addressing the real needs.
On extra stations, I think that, while it is inevitable that some people will say, “Well, if we have got this splendid new railway, can we not connect to it?”, every connection will add to journey time, of course, unless the extra stations should really be serving the lines that are being freed of the traffic by the construction of HS2. The idea that we should report to Parliament with the kind of frequency suggested means that people will be spending an awful lot of time doing that rather than, perhaps, getting on with negotiations to try to achieve the maximum amount of local understanding and support.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I support my noble friend’s amendment but have nothing to add.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust. I support Amendment 4, in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser, particularly where it seeks to ensure that the Government listen and learn from
“the views of residents and stakeholders … in regard to … the impact of the works on the natural environment, including but not limited to the impact on ancient woodland”.
In future amendments, we will discuss, with increasing depth, the issues of ancient woodlands and the unacceptably high impact of HS2, so I will not ask the House to listen to me going on and on about it several times—the Minister is already pretty fed up with hearing about it. I simply say that I support this amendment, which would not only help reduce environmental damage but, absolutely vitally, would examine the priorities of local people, which is inadequately done in these major infrastructure projects.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I question whether this amendment is appropriate for this Bill. My noble friend Lord Rosser talks about the inadequacies of the transport system in various terms, with examples including Oswestry. With respect to him, HS2 phase 2a, which is what we are supposedly discussing on this Bill, does not go anywhere near Oswestry. I point out to him as gently as possible—I do not want to upset him, as I know that he is a former railwayman—that the more stations that you put on a high-speed line, the less high-speed the trains become. The whole purpose of a high-speed line is to connect from city to city. While I have every sympathy with those who are affected by HS2, those of us who served on the committee did our best, as the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, said, to listen to people adversely affected or who felt that the road network in their immediate area was adversely affected by the forthcoming works, but again, as he said, surely those are matters for the highways authority. With the best respect to all noble Lords, we are not really qualified to make decisions about the impact of the work on HS2 on the road network in a particular town or village. That is for the local authorities. Those of us who have served on local authorities will be aware of the concern that people often express about traffic difficulties and alterations to the road network. Again with respect to my noble friend, I do not think it is for those of us in this House to make those decisions.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I had better declare an interest because I am sitting here in south Shropshire. South Shropshire is unknown to the people who run Shrewsbury and north Shropshire. They think that we are in another world. As far as I am concerned, the biggest transport issue in Shropshire is the A49. It needs to be dualled from top to bottom. I can understand why people at the margin, particularly on the boundary between Shropshire and Staffordshire, might have an interest, but, to be honest, the way that this amendment is drafted—I have no personal criticism of anybody—I do not intend to vote for it. It is almost a wrecking amendment, as shown by the provisions of proposed new subsection (2). So, having declared my interest and made my case for better transport infrastructure in Shropshire, and partly rubbished the amendment, I am content to leave it there.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have some sympathy for this amendment given my experience as a member of the HS2 committee. The representations that we heard from petitioners were basically very local: they were individual petitions—people who had particular grievances and concerns—and, to the extent that there was any collective representation, at the parish council level. It is a pity that broader questions of whether the county council, highways authority and those responsible for transport locally had looked at how the impact of HS2 could be mitigated, given that we do not want to stop it or change the line of the route, did not come up at our committee. I therefore have some sympathy with Amendment 4.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, this is an interesting amendment. I shall just concentrate a very few remarks on proposed new subsection (2)(c) and (d). The first thing to say is that I do not think that anybody is serious in expecting them to build extra stations on phase 2a. Crewe is a very good junction and it must involve, possibly on other lines, building extra stations if it can be justified.
As part of the Oakervee review, I also, with the team, visited Crewe. I think the Select Committee went there as well. It brings into focus the fact that the Select Committee quite rightly looks at local things and people’s concerns, but who looks at what one might call the regional connectivity? I will give one example. We were sitting in the office in Crewe talking to HS2 and Network Rail representatives and it became quite clear that the design of HS2 to go through Crewe station was effectively preventing even an hourly service from Shrewsbury through Crewe to Manchester because of the point layout. I got the impression that HS2 did not care at all about that. Network Rail said, “You’re stopping us doing even what we can do at the moment with difficulty”. I do not know where that should be discussed, or whether it should be in a report, as the amendment proposes, but there ought to be an opportunity to discuss it. It is not a matter for petitioning, but I will be interested to hear what the Minister will say about it.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 4 because HS2 has come in for criticism about the quality of its consultation with local residents. Although it has impressed on us how much it has improved, I am sure that there is probably still some way to go. I am particularly concerned about the impact of the construction process, which may not be obvious to either HS2, or to local residents, before it starts. Construction of a project of this size and this kind is not a transitory process, in that it will impact on some communities for years. It is not like your next-door neighbour building an extension, where it is bad for a few months but then the disturbance goes away. This could last for years.
The amendment specifies traffic and the impact on the environment. Although both issues were raised in Committee, we still need some answers from the Minister. We have heard a lot, and will hear more today, about the impact on ancient woodlands, but other aspects of the environment are of equal importance, for example wetlands. The amendment also includes an important reference to new links to HS2 itself. I am not suggesting—it never occurred to me—that that means stopping on the way, as that obviously would be a very slow way to run a high-speed railway. Treated properly, HS2 will be the catalyst for a widespread upgrading of our existing Victorian railways. I was taking this amendment to mean improving links into HS2, to the stations that have been specified.
Amendment 8, which is in my name, is also in this group. It specifically refers to that aspect. It provides for an annual review of connectivity in our rail network and the impact of HS2 on that. I have already spoken this afternoon about the importance of using HS2 to unlock capacity to allow more intensive use of existing lines by commuters and for other local journeys, as well as to provide room for the transfer of freight from road to rail. The northern powerhouse and Midlands Connect rely on that. I suggest that progress on this needs annual review because the Government—any Government—need to be kept under pressure to maintain the momentum for change. The review is to be laid before Parliament within six months of its completion. Once again, that is to avoid backsliding.
There is also a provision so that the impact of the pandemic is taken into account. This is specifically to address the impact on demand for public transport, which has clearly fallen sharply in recent months, largely because people are worried about safety, although public transport providers have made huge efforts to ensure it is safe. However, demand will return, albeit maybe in a different pattern which providers will have to adapt to. Anyone who thinks that we will suddenly not want to travel has misjudged human nature and failed to take the lessons of history. I am keen that above all we encourage people back to travelling by rail. There has been a lot of discussion about building back better, and part of that is ensuring that new services are fit for the future, and ensuring that HS2 is the catalyst to enable future UK Governments to deliver on climate objectives, by taking cars and lorries off the road and replacing planes with trains.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I will address these amendments, how they are worded and what their consequences would be, because I am not sure that that fully came out in this debate, which was much shorter than I had anticipated. When I first looked at this speaking note on Saturday, it had 2,585 words. This is not to suggest that I intend to bore your Lordships into submission but to illustrate that there has been a huge amount of consultation, and that there is a huge amount to say about it.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would mandate just one more round—like one more wafer-thin mint—as if it might yield what? Would it yield different results to previous consultations, when works have not even started, and impacts are not yet being felt? I agree with what I think lies behind the noble Lord’s amendment: that HS2 Ltd must engage with and consult local communities, not once, not twice, but on an ongoing basis, before, during and after the project. I have condensed 20 minutes of words into something slightly less, but I warn noble Lords that there is still a fair amount to say.
I have a huge amount of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who is exceptional in his diligence and one of the hardest-working Members of your Lordships’ House, but I was saddened that just a few examples were being used to show that the entire consultation process therefore has not worked. That is not the case. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also said something like, “Well, I hear reports that consultation hasn’t gone brilliantly.” If there are specific concerns about lack of engagement, I encourage any noble Lord to bring them forward to Minister Stephenson. We will build this project successfully if engagement happens before, during and after the project. We have a way forward, and therefore the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is not needed; nor would it even be helpful to the progress of the Bill, I am afraid.
Ten years ago, there were consultations that led to the initial identification of the preferred route. Five years ago, further consultation carved out phase 2a as a separate project to bring the benefits of HS2 to Crewe sooner. That led to the further round of consultations. In spring 2016, HS2 Ltd undertook a consultation on the scope and methodology to be used in producing phase 2a’s environmental statement and equalities impact assessment. In September 2016, HS2 Ltd launched consultations on the phase 2a working draft environmental statement and the working draft equalities impact assessment. At the same time, the phase 2a design refinement consultation was conducted by the Department for Transport. These consultations were open to everyone, including the people of Staffordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire, and were publicised widely by letter, email, notices in local newspapers, posters in doctors’ surgeries and libraries, press releases to local media and, of course, social media.
The consultations included information about the impacts on the natural environment, including ancient woodland. They included information about construction routes and road diversions and closures, so that people could understand what might happen to their local roads and transport infrastructure. They included alternative options and asked for feedback. The consultations closed in November 2016. The responses were collated, taken into account and, where relevant, design changes were made. The report on all that work was published alongside the deposit of the phase 2a Bill in July 2017. It took over a year, but that is not all.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received one request to ask a short question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I call the noble Lord to ask a short question for elucidation.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I think that the Minister has demonstrated how much consultation there has been over the years. I do not want to go into that, other than to say that most of it has been good. However, I go back to paragraphs (2)(c) and (d) proposed in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rosser. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, people will start to think, “Okay, it’s being built. What’s going to be the end result?” I can see my noble friend’s concerns: it gets built but the connections to it by rail, with or without extra stations, either have not been thought through or nobody will know who is responsible for them. Will that satisfy the consultees? I am not sure that having an annual report is the right thing, but I hope that the noble Baroness will consider what should be done to satisfy people that, when the line opens in 10 years’ time or whatever, all these things will have been addressed. If there are changes that people think are desirable, they could have started so that there is not another 10-year gap before something happens.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for raising that point. It is really important, so I will ask my honourable friend Minister Heaton-Harris, the Rail Minister, perhaps to write to him setting out his ambitions for rail nationwide, particularly how his ambitions for rail interact with the ambitions for HS2 and how that then produces greater rail connectivity.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for her response and indeed for her kind words. I also thank all other noble Lords who have participated in this debate.
My amendment calls for further consultation, seeking the views of residents and stakeholders
“who may be impacted by the scheduled works”,
including on whether there are
“sufficient transport provisions for the purposes of passengers connecting to”
HS2 so that they can benefit from it, with a report on that consultation to Parliament. Clearly, from that, the references are not to additional stations on HS2 itself but to whether there is a case for any additional stations, reopening of lines or improvements to stations associated with improving connectivity to and from phase 2 of HS2 for the people of the three counties mentioned in the amendment—namely, Cheshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire.
As one can see from the wording of the amendment, it is not about having another consultation on what the route should be or anything like that; it is about the impact of the works and about looking at transport links to and from HS2—that is, all transport links, not just rail links. The amendment specifically refers to “transport provisions” to enable better access for the residents of the three counties.
The amendment would not tie the Government’s hands to any specific course of future action or policy; nor would it delay progress on phase 2a of HS2, as it does not stipulate that there should be no further progress until the consultation has been completed and the report put before Parliament. The issue is that there is a need to make sure that local residents affected feel that their voice is being heard by HS2 and that their views are being listened to. They should not, as I said, feel that consultation is something of a tick-box exercise in which they are told what is going to happen rather than being engaged on a continuous, regular basis. They should feel involved in decisions affecting them and be aware of what is happening and when.
The Government appear satisfied with the consultation that has taken place with local residents on phase 2a of HS2. I have to say that that is not the message that I get. I do not think that the Government should be satisfied with what has taken place to date, albeit it may have been extensive. It comes back to the question of whether people feel that they are being told what is going to happen, as opposed to them having an impact on decisions affecting their lives.
I hope that he will not mind my doing so—if he does, I apologise in advance—but I refer to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who said the following in Committee on 9 November. In relation to phase 1, in which the noble Lord was much involved, presumably at that time the Government were saying much the same thing as we have heard today about the extent and thoroughness of the consultation that there had been. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, said:
“HS2 does not listen to the concerns of NGOs, Members of Parliament or ordinary members of the public. As an example, when I ceased to be the Member of Parliament for Uxbridge, I was succeeded by no less than the current Prime Minister, but he has just as much trouble getting answers out of HS2 as I did.”—[Official Report, 9/11/20; col. GC 376.]
Clearly, if the Prime Minister cannot get answers out of HS2, what chance do the residents of Shropshire, Staffordshire and Cheshire stand without the help of this amendment and the helpful role that it will enable the new Minister for HS2 to play in ensuring that there is proper and continuing engagement by HS2 and progress on ensuring improved transport links in the three counties to and from HS2 phase 2a? I have listened carefully to what has been said, but I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 5. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 5
Lord Blencathra
“Biodiversity net gain
The scheduled works must achieve 10% biodiversity net gain.”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as in the register as the deputy chair of Natural England. Amendment 5 stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I will also speak to Amendments 6, 7 and 11 in this group. I give notice to the House that I will seek votes on Amendments 5, 6 and 7 unless the Government see light on the road to Damascus or even on the line to Crewe.
First, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the numerous meetings she has held with Peers proposing amendments. If we have not been persuaded, it is no reflection on my noble friend—it is just that some of us are difficult blighters at the best of times. However, on this occasion we think we might have some merit on our side. Noble Lords may consider this an unusual grouping of Peers, but we are all united in our desire to protect and enhance UK biodiversity, which has declined drastically over the last 50 years. We are not seeking to stop or slow down HS2a, but we suggest that a flagship construction project should be a flagship regeneration project for our flora and fauna too, and it can be done at little cost.
Amendment 5 would insert a new clause stating:
“The scheduled works must achieve 10% biodiversity net gain.”
The Government’s policy is that all new developments must achieve 10% biodiversity net gain. This has been welcomed by developers who see it as a selling point for their properties. However, the policy does not apply to national infrastructure projects, which in my view should be leading by example. Indeed, even Network Rail and Highways England have committed to net gain in the future.
Clause 92 and Schedule 14 to the Environment Bill, currently in another place and which this House will get next year, lays down a requirement for 10% net gain, but the HS2 policy is just no net loss. Leaving aside the point that when one destroys an ancient woodland there is an irrecoverable loss, that policy is now way out of date. In 2015, no net loss might have satisfied the public and the then Government, but it is out of step with what the Prime Minister has announced in the last few months and out of step with the mood of the times on to our environment.
Just last week, the Prime Minister said in the national infrastructure strategy that we must build back better and greener. He made the 30x30 pledge and recently launched a massive programme of nature recovery networks. Therefore, the old HS2 policy on the destruction of habitats and wildlife is way out of tune with the Government’s new thinking on nature recovery.
I pay tribute to the Government and to my honourable friend Andrew Stephenson MP, the Minister in charge in another place, for pushing HS2 to do more than just achieve no net loss. This amendment is designed to help my noble friend the Government by putting HS2a under an obligation to achieve 10% overall biodiversity improvement when the project is complete. HS2’s green corridor ambition can contribute to the project’s environmental legacy, but it is unlikely to deliver net gain on its own.
The main misconception about net gain, and this has been said in Committee, is that it would involve more compulsory purchase of land adjacent to the line. That is absolutely not the case. Achieving net gain in this project is similar to the environmental land management schemes being designed for farmers, launched this morning. That would mean HS2 offering incentives for landowners and others to develop biodiversity projects. These may be adjacent to the route or even many miles away. HS2 could fund new woodlands, peat restoration or wetlands improvements and these do not have to be tied to the route. It could fund landowners or organisations such as the RSPB, the Woodland Trust and local wildlife trusts to carry out nature recovery work elsewhere, so long as by the end of the project all the works had achieved a 10% net gain overall.
Natural England calculates that the cost of net gain over the whole HS2 route would be 0.01%, or £100 million. Here we are dealing with a section one-third of that length and a guestimate of costs would therefore be about £35 million. That would be a one-off cost. The wage bill for the 1,389 HS2 staff last year was £109 million, and that will be a recurring cost for 15 years or so. Thus, achieving net gain is a very small cost but a huge environmental gain. We should expect HS2 as the Government’s flagship infrastructure project to lead the way and go above and beyond the minimum and achieve what we will legislate for next year in the Environment Bill.
HS2 is unnecessarily antagonising organisations which would love to weigh in behind it if it would do a little bit more for biodiversity. There will be some who will always be opposed to the project, but many highly respected NGOs would publicly support HS2 if it achieved net gain and saved ancient woodlands.
That brings me on to Amendment 6, and my proposed new clause:
“The scheduled works must not destroy any ancient woodlands, either directly or indirectly.”
A number of ancient woodlands would be damaged or destroyed by the current proposed route. No matter how many new trees we plant, we cannot replace the biodiversity lost when an ancient woodland is destroyed. These are not just old trees. When habitats have been left to develop for 500 years or so they become complex ecosystems holding a wide range of flora. Ancient woodlands have declined dramatically over the years and now cover only 2.4% of the UK. That is far too small a size to sacrifice even more.
I quote from the Government’s own National Planning Policy Framework, which instructs councils that
“development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists”.
Of course, the Government then list as “wholly exceptional” any old national infrastructure projects where they exempt themselves from the rules they apply to everyone else. In this day and age, I do not think Governments will get away with a policy of “Everyone must obey the rules, except us.” That mood is changing.
If ancient woodlands have to be destroyed, Natural England proposes a replanting ratio of 30:1. That seems high but it is a recognition that you have to plant a lot more new trees if you are going to try to ameliorate the damage done by the loss of ancient woods. I shall say no more on this subject, on this amendment, because I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who is an absolute expert on this matter, will talk about ancient woodlands. I look forward to hearing what she has to say about this amendment and her Amendment 13.
My last amendment, Amendment 7, seeks to insert a new clause stating that:
“All plants and trees planted on any of the land on which the scheduled works take place, or in mitigation of the effects of those works, must be … British native species, and … sourced in the United Kingdom.”
This is not a little Englander new clause, suggesting that I do not want nasty foreign trees when we have left the EU, but a recognition that our native wildlife needs native plants and habitat to survive. For tens of thousands of years our native fauna has survived and developed in a habitat of native British flora. Putting it simply, we cannot have native red squirrels unless we have the native trees producing the nuts, fruits and seeds on which they survive. The Back from the Brink project, to recover 20 species from near extinction, depends on native habitats.
This new clause is necessary because HS2 plans to plant one-third of the plants and trees from latitudes of up to two degrees south of the midpoint of the route. Planting trees from further south may make sense for commercial forestry, guarding against climate change, but does nothing to help our native fauna survive. Eucalyptus trees from France may be very good for timber but I understand their leaves are toxic and that only koala bears and possums thrive on them and we do not want those species running around our woods. Thus, we need UK native trees and plants to support our native wildlife. However, I mention that as an extreme example and I do not expect to see these exotic species from France, but it is highly likely that the one-third will be sourced from the largest supplier of trees and plants in Europe: the Netherlands. Last year, we imported £1 billion of trees and plants from Holland.
As colleagues will know, we face an increasing threat from diseases unwittingly imported along with plants sourced from abroad. Even if we step up biosecurity when we leave the EU, there will still be an enormous risk of bringing in destructive bugs and diseases. For any imported seed stock, HS2 must follow the relevant hygiene regulations as set out in the Plant Health (England) Order 2005 and it must comply with the latest biosecurity certification standards on planting and importation. But that is what is supposed to happen at the moment for all imported seeds and plants and yet we have ash dieback, oak processionary moth and spittlebugs, and God help us if Xylella fastidiosa gets here because it can destroy 500 different tree species. Of course, many bugs and diseases are hidden in the soil.
No doubt noble Lords with more expertise than I will correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the case that every single bug and disease which has devastated our trees and plants has come in from abroad despite the best efforts at port control with phytosanitary measures? Do not take my word for it on the risk. In July 2019, the Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture issued a warning to all its members saying that they had to take special care that they did not export the oak processionary moth to England along with all the English oaks they exported to us. If even the Dutch exporters are warning about the dangers of their products, should we not exercise a bit more caution? The one-third foreign planting advice satisfies the technical advice from the Forestry Commission and Natural England, but I am suggesting that we should be more cautious than the technical advice. The danger is not foreign eucalyptus but foreign English oaks.
At this precise moment—or he may have finished now—my noble friend Lord Gardiner is upstairs in the Grand Committee taking through a large SI on protecting us from invasive non-native species. A week today, he is taking through a massive SI with 13 annexes on plant phytosanitary conditions. Defra is well aware of the threat but it seems that the Department for Transport is not. That is why a requirement on acquiring plants from UK sources is so important. It will also be good business for UK nurseries that can easily supply all that would be required. We have a huge range of UK native trees and there is no excuse not to use them. One has just to look at the Woodland Trust website to see the full range and all animals, birds, butterflies and other species that depend on our native flora for survival.
I have just read, this weekend, the Woodland Trust publication, published this month, called Tree Provenance Choice in a Changing Climate, which addresses this biodiversity argument. The Woodland Trust says:
“For woodland conservation, resilience, and enhanced biosecurity, evidence suggests that tree seed sourced from local UK provenances will be best adapted for UK sites in the long term … Wherever possible, trees should be sourced from within the UK in order to prevent further introductions of damaging pests and diseases.”
Again, I say simply: do not take my word for it but listen to the experts on this occasion.
I want to say a few words on Amendment 11. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has drafted—in my opinion—a more detailed and better amendment than mine. I look forward to her speaking on it, but I will seek a vote on Amendment 7 if the noble Baroness does not seek one on Amendment 11.
I cannot see any downside to the Government accepting Amendments 7 or 11. They carry no extra cost, give a big boost to UK plant growers, provide native trees and plants for our native wildlife, and are a 100% cast-iron guarantee that we will not bring in another devastating plant disease. It is a win-win-win-win for all of us but especially our tress and wildlife.
I apologise that I have spoken at length on these amendments, so I will not try the patience of the House by speaking to any other amendments today, but I do support Amendments 10 and 13 in another group, when they are reached.
In conclusion, the cost of what we propose here for this short part of the route is infinitesimally small in comparison with the overall cost of the project. Our amendments would not slow down construction. If we are to have a world-class new railway, we should preserve our existing world-class woods and wildlife—what remain of them. HS2 should guarantee a substantial environmental legacy that is commensurate with the status of a flagship government infrastructure project. I hope that the Government might accept these simple amendments of mine or that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is an extremely great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He has made a very eloquent case for all the amendments in his name and those that I have signed with him. First, I draw attention to my environmental entries in the register of interests.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 5, 6 and 7 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and to Amendment 11 in my name.
I will start with Amendment 5. You really cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—he laid out the case so clearly and passionately. It is strange that the Government have committed to, and will bring into legislation, a requirement to have 10% biodiversity net gain from all developments other than major infrastructure projects. It is morally as well as environmentally important that these major projects, which are mostly government-sponsored, should not be able to duck this important commitment if the government are trying to get everybody else to commit to it. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
Of course, there are weasel words in all this. In the case of HS2, the concept of net biodiversity gain would need to be defined very carefully. Any project that impacts adversely on ancient woodland is already not able to achieve net gain fully, as damage to ancient woodland is irreversible and cannot be compensated for in any way. No amount of tree planting or carting woodland soils across the country can recreate or compensate for trees that may be anywhere between 400 and 1,000 years old, and are part of complex webs of biodiversity. That is what ancient woodland is—it is about not just the trees but the soils and all the other species; it is about that ecosystem. So I would support a requirement for 10% biodiversity net gain for HS2 with the exclusion of ancient woodland, where it simply does not work. I am also greatly against HS2 saying that it is delivering biodiversity net gain. As long as it is destroying ancient woodland, it simply cannot make that claim.
I support Amendment 6. It is a bold and simple amendment not to destroy ancient woodlands. Avoiding ancient woodland in some of these major infrastructure projects is not an impossible dream. However, it needs a couple of things to happen; for example, an up-to-date ancient woodland inventory mapping all the remaining areas so that developers have a sporting chance of seeing where these areas are and avoiding them. That has been done very successfully for such things as sites of special scientific interest, marine protected areas or bird-breeding areas. It is not a new idea but a very simple one.
The current ancient woodland inventory has existed for a number of decades but is incredibly out of date. I saw a quite laughable example recently where a site on the ancient woodland inventory has actually been a cement works for 15 years; that goes to show how out of date it is. It is out of date, it does not map all the eligible areas, a lot is missing and, as a matter of policy, it does not go down to some of the smaller fragments.
Natural England is responsible for updating it and is, very slowly, with Woodland Trust help because it simply does not have enough money to do it at the pace that is needed. We really cannot expect developers to do a good job on ancient woodland identification without help. An inventory could avoid much conflict, if there was a good one in place. The simple message for the Minister today on the ancient woodland inventory, as part of Amendment 6, would be: please stump up the money to allow it to be completed and brought up to date. It is bizarre that a charity such as the Woodland Trust, supported by public donation, is paying for a statutory body to do a statutory job.
The second thing we need if we are to destroy no more ancient woodland is a slower speed HS2, as constantly advocated by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. The TGV goes at 200 mph and the Japanese bullet train goes even slower. Why do we need one at 250 mph? Let us have medium-speed rail rather than high-speed rail; that would give us the ability to wiggle the routes more around sites that are sensitive, for whatever reasons, and reduce the amount of public angst for a variety of reasons. We know, as has been said this evening, that HS2 is more about capacity for passengers and freight than about journey time. Speed is less important; ancient woodland is vital.
Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that the species used by the HS2 project are all native. This is important for three reasons. Most commercial forestry in this country focuses on non-native softwoods. As we restore the highly depleted tree cover of the UK, which we are going to do because it is vital for us in addressing climate change, the biggest growth needs to be in native trees. Strangely enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, pointed out, they also support native biodiversity and will help to reverse the tremendous decline in it that has already happened, so we need native trees to be planted by the HS2 project. Sticking to native trees also avoids imports and helps to avoid tree disease. I will speak on that when I come to Amendment 11.
I want to challenge the argument at the moment that HS2 needs to plant a substantial proportion of trees from two to five degrees south—as far south as the Loire valley—because they will adapt better to climate change. That argument is simply ceasing to represent what the science is saying. Recent research confirms that native species growing in native soils and living in assemblages of native biodiversity, to which they are accustomed, have more chance of adapting over time to climate change as it advances. They are capable of demonstrating greater resilience, particularly because of the wide genetic variation which we are blessed with in this country, even within individual species and sites. I urge the Minister to tackle Defra to require the Forestry Commission urgently to revise its guidance on the selection of species. What might be just acceptable for non-native species in commercial forestry is absolutely not acceptable for amenity and conservation planting, which is what HS2 is doing.
Let me turn to Amendment 11 in my name. We desperately need a biosecurity standard for HS2 to reduce the risk of importing potentially devastating tree disease. We all know what happened to English elms. Ash dieback is now rampant, with a prediction that 80% of the more than 2 billion ash trees will die. Now that is what I call a pandemic, and it will change the face of the British countryside. Ash trees are the most predominant trees standing as standards in our hedgerows. They are an archetypal bit of what the English countryside looks like, but they are not going to be around. Lots and lots of other trees, for commercial and amenity purposes, will die as a result of the ash pandemic.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am rising in support of all these amendments. If it comes to a vote, I will vote for them all. It is a pleasure to follow the previous three speakers. I admit we are a strange bunch to be putting amendments, and, after the excellent opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I look forward to working with him on the Environment Bill. I am sure we will have lots to agree about. Astonishing, is it not?
It is worth saying yet again that we are in a climate emergency. Gone is the time for mega projects like this. It is not the time for new airports and new roads. We have to cut down. It is a time for creativity, adaptation and transformation, as well as keeping things local, whether buying or producing. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 would, at least, protect against some of the worst damage and legally require effective mitigation of the damage.
I know HS2 makes lots of promises, but unfortunately, it often breaks its promises. It is down to the Government to make sure it does not. For example, last night, in Camden, there was a motion to try to reclaim £129 million for rehousing from HS2 because it gave all sorts of assurances about noise and construction, dust and debris, all of which has made life absolutely impossible for hundreds of Camden residents. Every single political party unanimously agreed that HS2 was at fault and they would try to reclaim the money. We have to accept that HS2 does not live up to its promises. We, here and in the other place, have to try to make sure it does.
The Bill has shown the limits of what parliamentary democracy can achieve. The parliamentary arithmetic is against us in the other place and in this House. Preventing this destruction is something that just a few of us cannot manage. I realise that the Green Party is the only political party that is against HS2, alongside some notable rebels from other parties. I am very sad that Labour is not, I gather, supporting these amendments today. Surely everybody cares about biodiversity; it is the basis of our health as humans. I pay a special tribute to all the campaigners against HS2, some of whom are exposing themselves to great physical, mental and financial risks. Their work, like that of activists on so many issues, is what inspires me and keeps me fighting in this Chamber, although it is wonderful to have the support of other political parties today.
The Conservatives ran a shameless election gambit last year, claiming to put HS2 on hold. They did not so much kick it into the long grass as hide it in the grass until after the election—then they went ahead with it. They had full support for it once the election was over, not understanding what the loss of ancient woodland means. I have heard the arguments: it is only a few; there are lots more; we can replace them. That is all absolute nonsense. The loss of ancient woodlands creates gaping wounds in Britain’s nature. These amendments will, at least, force the Government to face the reality of the destruction that is being inflicted.
I am pleased to be a signatory to Amendments 5 to 7 and would have signed Amendment 11 if I had spotted it. I very much hope that the Government are in listening mode on this and that the Minister can take it back and get some sort of support for it.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot hope to match the oratory of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, when he moved and spoke to these amendments. I have a great deal of sympathy for what he said, but I urge him and other noble Lords to look at the report from the Select Committee, which took this aspect of the Bill extremely seriously.
We heard detailed evidence from the Woodland Trust about biodiversity, particularly about the loss of ancient woodlands. Can the Minister define exactly what an ancient woodland is? There seemed to be some doubt in the committee about what it was and how much of it was being lost through the building of HS2a. It seemed to us that the Woodland Trust’s demand that any ancient woodland being lost should be replaced at a ratio of 30:1 was somewhat excessive. Does the Minister agree with that? The distinguished chairman of the committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made the point that replacement to such an extent would take a considerable amount of existing farmland and would certainly not be in the interests of the countryside generally. Can the Minister say exactly how much ancient woodland is being lost as a result of the HS2 scheme?
The committee received assurances from the promoters of HS2, who insisted that they had planted, and intended to plant, new woodlands, though perhaps not to the extent that the noble Lord who moved the amendment would like. I would be interested to hear the Government’s view. The committee was not entirely satisfied with the promoter’s response on the replacement of woodlands, but the case for their replacement is not helped by exaggerating the amount of ancient woodland being lost through this project.
On the proportion of new and replacement trees from abroad, the committee sought assurances from the promoters that such replacement would be kept to a minimum. Again, those assurances were received. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what proportion of British native species she envisages will be replaced under the scheme and how much of it will come from other countries. I cannot comment, because I do not have the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, about the dangers of importing seeds from places such as the Netherlands, but if organisations such as the Forestry Commission and Natural England are prepared to accept a proportion of replacement trees from the continent, it seems to me that we should accept their assurances.
My noble friend Lady Young wanted to turn the high-speed train—perhaps an unfortunate name for it—into a medium-speed train by curving the line and having it less straight. I gently remind her that one of the reasons we are building HS2 is the curvature of the existing lines caused by the reluctance of landowners in the 19th century to permit the railways to pass through their land. The two things go together. If we are to have a train service that exceeds the speed of our existing services, which is at least one of the purposes of HS2, expecting it to go round curves would make unsatisfactory the reason for building it in the first place.
My noble friend asked some important questions about biodiversity which the committee was anxious to look at, but I stress that we were collectively and unanimously of the opinion that, although HS2 could do more, it was certainly making a substantial contribution to the replacement of any trees that would of necessity be destroyed by the project. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what progress has been made so far on this aspect of the Bill in light of the amendments before us.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, how appropriate it is that we are discussing these amendments during International Year of Plant Health and, more particularly, National Tree Week. It is rare that we get that lucky match.
I will speak to all the amendments in turn. On Amendment 5, which would insert a new clause on biodiversity net gain, I have very little to say except that I support my noble friend. It seems illogical that a flagship project should not behave in the same way as other projects, as envisaged in the Environment Bill which will come to us shortly.
On Amendment 6, my heart is with it, but I fear that in this and other amendments one is looking at the environment a bit too much with a telescope; it needs to be done slightly more broadly. There are other irreplaceable habitats, so why single out ancient woodlands? There needs to be a balance overall for the environment. If we avoid ancient woodlands, which I am all for, are we doing more damage to the environment by going another way? At the end of the day, that requires a balance. If we put into legislation just one item, that we will not destroy any ancient woodland, there could be adverse and perverse effects which we have not taken into account.
Amendment 7 relates to British native species. What are British native species? There is a list on the Woodland Trust’s website. I am glad to see that the only softwood is Scots pine, so there will be no chance of Norwegian pine, thuja, sitka spruce or anything else being planted; if there is to be any softwood, it will have to be Scots pine.
When it comes to our broadleaf woodlands, let us not forget that 70% of them are still represented by only five species, and disease is wiping out one of them: ash. We need more diversity in our woodlands.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I do not always agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra, but I thought he gave a splendid introduction to these amendments this evening. Unlike my noble friend Lord Caithness, I find myself almost entirely in agreement with him. One thing I did agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness about—well, probably more than one—was these idiots bringing in bugs to bite people who are camping in Wales. What an irresponsible, stupid, ridiculous thing to do. I have never watched the programme, but it ought to be entitled “I’m an idiot… Get me out of here!”
There was a programme that I watched last night—it is one that I watch quite often as gentle, Sunday evening viewing: “Countryfile”. The theme last night was trees and planting. There was a very splendid testimony given by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, there were young people planting trees in Bradford, and there was great emphasis on the need to increase our woodland coverage. Only 13% of our land surface is forested in this country, which compares very unfavourably in percentage terms with virtually every other country in Europe. Only 3%, or slightly less, deserves the designation of ancient woodland.
Although nothing is foolproof and nothing is guaranteed to bring an absolute result, I believe that my noble friend Lord Blencathra is entirely right in the three targets that he sets. I have to admit that I am not a great fan of HS2, but I accept that it is going to happen—but I am not persuaded, and do not accept, in spite of the honeyed words of my noble friend the Minister, that those in charge of HS2 are such wonderful champions of consultation.
I have heard far too many stories about that from friends in Staffordshire, where I was a Member of Parliament for 40 years. HS2 does not touch my constituency, but I had the honour to be a deputy lieutenant of Staffordshire—I am still on the retired list, in fact—and I know that many of the people whose livelihoods and property are affected in parts of the county were less than impressed by the sensitivity of those to whom they had talked. Consultation often seemed to be the giving of information rather than the requiring of comments and views.
Only this weekend I spoke to one of our colleagues in your Lordships’ House who lives in the Chilterns, who told a similar story, and also bemoaned the loss of ancient woodland in that particularly beautiful and sensitive part of our country. I used to drive through the Chilterns every week during my last 25 years as a Staffordshire MP, and one of the great sights was, of course, the soaring of the red kites above those wonderful hills.
It is far too late to oppose the building of HS2—although not too late to regret it. I think that it may well prove to have been the visionary answer to a problem as it was seen in 2010, but to be rather obsolete by 2050—because it will be 2050, not 2040, by the time it is completed.
Looking individually at my noble friend’s amendments, I see that he is entirely right to insist on a biodiversity net gain. As has been said, the Government are imposing this plan in many places. Should not the greatest infrastructure project of our times be subject to such an edict? It certainly should be.
I have already touched on the subject of ancient woodlands, and one of the most specious, fallacious arguments I have heard in recent years is the suggestion that we could preserve ancient woodlands by preserving the soil and transporting it. How fatuous can you get? As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, we cannot replace ancient woodlands. When they are dug up, they are dug up; when they have gone, they have gone. I can tell my friend the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that it will be 200 years before a woodland planted tomorrow can qualify for the description “ancient woodland”. Many of the ancient woodlands that we are talking about contain trees dating back between 500 and 1,000 years. Think of the Major Oak in Sherwood Forest.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra is right to stress how prodigal a waste it is to get rid of ancient woodlands. His third amendment is about native British species, and how integral the flora and the fauna of our native land are. He is right to say that there should be a requirement to replace native plants and trees with native plants and trees. That was one of the rather encouraging things in last night’s “Countryfile”, because that is precisely what they were doing, deriving both knowledge and enthusiasm in the process.
My noble friend the Minister has been working incredibly hard. She paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and I pay tribute to her. I hope that she will just take on board how very serious these subjects are, and the comments not only of my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Randall, but of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and, of course, the noble Baroness Lady Young of Old Scone, who has enormous experience in such matters. They are making serious, valid points, to which I hope I have added just a tiny bit. When we have lost something, we cannot get it back. The Prime Minister has talked about the importance of planting. Well, here is a challenge for him—to ensure that HS2 plays its part in rejuvenating our glorious countryside.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I too watched “Countryfile” yesterday evening; in these gloomy days I found it really quite inspiring. I wish to speak in support of Amendments 5, 6 and 7. Although much has been said already—the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, have comprehensively dealt with the issue—perhaps something I say may be of interest.
During our discussions in Committee, I was accused by one noble Lord of making a Second Reading speech. I cannot possibly agree. I contend that if a project is as fundamentally flawed as HS2, this flows over and contaminates every aspect of the Bill. It is impossible to escape the basic facts. If you are unwise enough to try to build a house on shifting sand, every time you discuss the doors or windows, you will be forced back into recognising that you have made a dreadful mistake from which there is no escape.
These proposed new clauses, which I support, are about damage limitation. The effect of HS2 on our natural environment will be, and is already, catastrophic. To insist, as Amendment 5 does, on a “10% biodiversity net gain”, rather than the very unambitious “no net loss”, seems the least we can do. The Government insist on these standards for other people and ought to insist on them for HS2, particularly as the damage is being inflicted by the Government and intentionally.
Amendment 6 deals with ancient woodland. I declare a long-standing and non-pecuniary interest in the Arboricultural Association, the foremost organisation in the country in the planting and care of our urban trees. I was for some years its president and am now an honorary fellow. The amendment is about doing all we can to protect and preserve our ancient woodlands. Let no one pretend that HS2 is not doing irreparable damage. The woodlands, with all the benefits and joy they bring, will never be replaced. It is futile to suggest it. It is even more ridiculous, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has just pointed out, to suggest that they can be moved, as anyone with any understanding of trees, soils and their interaction can testify. Protection, not replacement, is the key.
I come back to the point I made earlier about the relationship between the Second Reading of a Bill and its later stages. Whoever dreamed up HS2 either did not care or did not understand the effect of driving a high-speed train through the heart of England. If you want to travel at the kind of speeds originally used to sell the project, you must travel in a straight line. You cannot have bends or curves, for obvious reasons, so you draw a straight line from London to Birmingham, or Birmingham to Crewe, and if anything happens to get in the way—towns, villages, farms, businesses, people’s homes or ancient woodland—I am afraid that is just too bad. A massive amount of damage is inevitable and, one would have thought, foreseeable. This is not how you build roads and railways in a relatively small country. It is possible to travel at reasonably high speeds on railways which have been constructed, as far as reasonably possible, to avoid doing the kind of damage that I feel has been inevitable from this scheme’s conception.
The irony of all this, as I understand it, is that, for a variety of reasons, the originally dreamt-up speeds are not going to be possible. Indeed, the accent has now shifted, and the argument has moved to other things, so time may show that our ancient woodlands have been sacrificed in vain, if we are no longer going at the speeds we projected. Some 108 of our ancient woodlands have already been affected and, nationally, only 2.4% of the original woodlands remain. We simply must do all we can to protect them. When the Minister comes to wind up, I would be grateful if she could tell us—if she can—what the top and average speeds of HS2 are now projected to be.
The new clause proposed in Amendment 7, in its excellent brevity, encapsulates the two most important issues facing the future of trees in the United Kingdom today. Basically we need, first, to keep diseased trees out and, secondly, to grow more of the trees we need. The two propositions are entirely complementary. If, through the problems created by HS2, we can make progress on these two issues, some good will have come out of the difficulties. For many years, I have been advocating tighter restrictions on imported trees and eventually, perhaps, a total ban. Certainly, we need an immediate ban on certain species, such as oak. We are an island and have phytosanitary advantages that brings; we cannot afford to take the risk of more admission of serious diseases.
We have suffered from Dutch elm disease and ash dieback, both of which are imported diseases. The first came from Canada and has almost completely wiped out our precious elm population. How many ash trees will be left when dieback has run its course remains to be seen. The latest fiasco has been the oak processionary moth, which does such damage to our oak trees. It had been present in this country for some time and was presumably imported, but it remained confined to London and the Home Counties. Recently, however, we allowed it in on a consignment of oak trees, and, saving the moth the inconvenience of spreading itself, we distributed it all over the country. There have been excuses aplenty but not the fierce action the situation demands.
We have Xylella fastidiosa, capable of infecting over 300 different plant species, and plane wilt, capable of wreaking havoc on all London planes—both diseases are in Europe, just waiting for the chance to invade. At the moment, our stance on imported trees is awareness and reaction. It should be much more aggressively defensive. As a country, we are becoming more tree-conscious, and mass tree-planting schemes are under way. Without adequate biosecurity, all that effort could be for nothing.
The gap in the market created by tighter import restrictions must be filled by our own nurseries. Urgent consultation should take place, involving government, tree nurseries, landscapers, contractors and local authorities to plan how this can be done and provide the long-term financial commitment badly needed by growers, the lack of which is the reason for so much of our imports. The Woodland Trust has already taken the lead on this issue and will plant only home-grown native trees. It is to be congratulated, and I agree with it when it says that it makes sense to insist that HS2 is required to source all its trees, shrubs and seeds from the UK. It says, and I agree, that to argue otherwise is to deny the seriousness of the situation we are facing.
If both the proposals made in the new clause in Amendment 7 can be put into action, this will be a huge step forward for our trees, and I believe that any noble Lord who really cares for our trees must support it.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a landowner with ancient woodlands in the Chilterns. That is set out in the register. I am also directly affected by HS2 south of Birmingham.
I would like to speak against Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, as it fails to take into account one of the three major threats to our woodland—that of climate change, the others being, of course, pests and diseases. It would be short-sighted and damaging to restrict in this manner the plants and trees that are planted under the provisions of the Bill. It also flies against the science and recommendations of the Forestry Commission, set out comprehensively in its report of November 2019 entitled Managing England’s Woodlands in a Climate Emergency, and the UK forestry standard which sets out the Government’s approach to sustainable forestry management with regard to climate change. I should mention here that the Forestry Commission is not just concerned with commercial woodland; it is concerned with all sorts of woodland.
The ancient woodlands of England cannot be set in aspic as they are as affected by climate change as any other type of woodland. We therefore need to ensure that a wood’s genetic viability is enhanced by including not only native species with local provenance but others which are successfully grown from seeds sourced from the Forestry Commission’s 2 to 5 degrees south rule. Avoiding pests and diseases is obviously paramount, so such trees should be grown from carefully selected imported seeds from selected stands, but in UK nurseries. Amendment 7 would be a backward and unhelpful move in the important development and expansion of UK nurseries, leaving aside potential climate change consequences to HS2 woodland.
Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, achieves much more than Amendment 7 in the sourcing of trees from UK growers, but unnecessarily seems to stop the importation of seed to enable the growing in the UK of trees to achieve the genetic provenance that is so necessary and comes from the areas 2 to 5 degrees south, which is the clear recommendation of the UK forestry standard and the Forestry Commission, which says that:
“Naturalised tree species should be considered to increase species diversity where appropriate”.
That may be necessarily limited in ancient woodland due to other factors, but we are looking at much wider tree planting. The Forestry Commission goes on to recommend the consideration of re-stocking from more southerly origins in the right conditions. Proposed new subsection (2) flies in the face of the Forestry Commission’s advice for the reason of biosecurity. I cannot and do not believe that the Forestry Commission ignores biosecurity, but it also correctly takes into account climate change. The importation of tree seed from carefully selected stands should be actively encouraged.
The other part of this amendment which I greatly welcome is the encouragement given to UK growers and the expansion of the domestic industry. I thoroughly agree that everything should be UK-sourced, but perhaps the amount of time specified for replanting should be extended if an unrealistic timeframe has been given, as supplies from the UK growers are likely to be initially limited in view of the enormous size of potential planting over the next few years. Any clause on those lines must bear in mind that there needs to be joined-up thinking on all tree planting, and in particular that arising from the ELMS in the Agriculture Act, the provisions of the Environment Bill and, of course, the English tree strategy.
One slightly mischievous thought, however, occurs. Perhaps this proposed new clause, suitably amended, should form the missing subsection in Clause 100 of the Environment Bill, which is entitled “Tree felling and planting” but currently covers only felling. Perhaps the Minister could mention that to Defra.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very lucky to be following my noble friend Lord Carrington because he said a great deal that I would have wished to say myself. A proper, healthy, temperate forest contains about 1,000 different tree species. That is true of North America and Asia. It is not true of Europe because the last ice age crushed the European flora against the Alps and we lost a lot of species and genera at that time. The ice ages also had a significant effect on us. At the peak of the last ice age we had only two trees species: pine and birch. Looking at things on a slightly longer than human timescale, those are the only two native British trees. Everything else has come in, but we still have only 31. It is a ridiculously small number and makes our forests extremely vulnerable to pests and diseases.
Pests and diseases travel easily. Even without our help, they blow in on the wind and come in on migratory birds. We have already experienced a number of these diseases. Round where I live in Eastbourne, most of the ash trees have gone. It looks as if as a continuing flow of disease is the future that we should expect. The right response to that is biodiversity. We should be striving for biodiversity in the number of species we are using in our new planting and in the origin of the seeds that we are using.
If we are careful and import seeds under proper conditions, the risks of bringing in disease are extremely low. I have seen the way Kew makes sure that what it brings in from around the world for its Millennium Seed Bank is safe to have and to store. It is not impossible and you do not need a huge weight of seed to supply a very large number of trees.
I very much favour what my noble friend Lord Carrington advocates. We should follow the direction that the Forestry Commission advocates and seek to increase our biodiversity—to get gradually towards a forest with more natural resilience and a more natural species than our current 31. That will give us resilience against incoming disease which we currently, quite clearly, do not have.
Where we face the regrettably small proportion of ancient natural woodlands, which are a great haven for established wildlife communities, we should not think that we cannot do anything to increase that. We need to plant the right kind of trees next door. It has always been the case that species move from one bit of wood to another. As I say, there were only two species here at the peak of the ice age. Everything else has come in. All the communities that live with them have come in. All these species are used to moving. If we create the right conditions next door, then in 100 or 200 years—the sort of timescale you are looking at if you plant trees—we will have a good community of woodland species in our new plantations.
We should not think that we can do nothing to increase our proportion of high-quality woodland. We should strive to increase it next to the woodland that we are damaging with HS2. To return to one of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s earlier amendments, we should absolutely require that HS2 achieves biodiversity net gain.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst. No? I call the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I too support these amendments, particularly Amendments 5 and 6. The destruction of ancient woodland has been exacerbated by the frankly disastrous public relations of HS2 on phase 1, which the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, mentioned. It has done nothing to endear HS2 to residents up and down the line of phase 1. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has outlined the problems very well, along with my noble friend Lady Young.
I will concentrate on something that my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone asked, which is whether you can avoid ancient woodland by slowing the trains down. It is a rather simplistic explanation on my part, because there is nothing to be done on phase 1. The line is there, HS2 has started clearing everything and we have seen the results. When it comes to the next phases, 2b west and 2b east—if it happens—which we have debated at length today, it would be possible to avoid much ancient woodland if Ministers look at the routing of the line. My noble friends Lady Young and Lord Snape talked about speeds, but obviously the faster a train goes, the straighter the line it goes on must be, not only on plan, but on profile. When you do not want too many humps and bumps, your cuttings and embankments get bigger and you take more land, including, possibly, a lot of ancient woodland.
Many noble Lords have been on the French high-speed line between Paris and Lyon, which was the first one built. I once had the privilege of being in the driver’s cab and found it to be rather like a fairground switchback. It was designed to avoid not only woodlands, also valleys and hills, to save on the cost. Even so, it goes at 270 kilometres per hour, which the French thought was fast enough. We prefer 400 kilometres per hour, because obviously we are a bigger country than France and want to be the best in the world, which is total rubbish. Even if we stuck to 270 kilometres per hour, the French speed, we could probably do something, but I hope that when HS2 and the Government plan phase 2b west, to Manchester, and phase 2b east, to Leeds and Sheffield, if it gets built that way, they look at the speeds and see how the alignment can be done to avoid ancient woodland, at an early stage before the Bill is published.
That is why I could not support my noble friend Lord Adonis’s amendment saying that everything had to be done in a hurry and within six months. As the Minister explained in her response, these things take time, and during that time, those of us who have an interest in avoiding ancient woodland and anything else that we feel needs preserving must look at it and relate it to the design speed of the alignment.
I suppose my last, rather facetious, comment—or maybe it is not facetious—is about phase 2a. The Bill is published, we are debating the Bill on Report tonight and it will probably get Royal Assent quite soon. Of course, if there are any ancient woodlands in the way—and I am afraid I do not know whether there are—one could suggest to Ministers that they make a slight deviation on the route of the line, using a Transport and Works Act order, which I also spoke about earlier. I am sure the Minister will not like that idea, but it is an option and it could be looked at.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, fighting climate change is a giant carbon calculation, and HS2 is firmly on the plus side. Rail is the most carbon-efficient form of transport and, in 2017, the transport sector overtook the energy sector as the UK’s largest carbon emitter. This debate has produced some extremely interesting and very expert speeches. They have revealed the complexity of the issue because those who know a great deal about these issues do not agree with each other.
On Amendment 5, HS2 itself claims that more than 33 square kilometres of new and existing wildlife habitat will be created or improved. That is a 30% addition compared with what is there now, and I hope the Minister can reassure us that this is accurate, that HS2’s claims are accurate and that there will be a substantial biodiversity net gain.
Turning now to Amendment 6, I read the committee’s report with great interest, and I have just re-read it while listening to this debate. HS2 says that 0.005% of ancient woodland will be affected by its project. As the committee noted, “ancient woodland” does not necessarily mean old trees, but rather that woodland has existed for a long time on that patch of ground. Some such areas were replanted after the two wars and were not necessarily planted with native species, so ancient woodland is not an amorphous mass of very important sites. There are varying levels of importance. Obviously, any loss is significant in terms of ecological diversity, but it is worth pointing out that new, young trees are more efficient and vigorous in dealing with climate change. Avoiding ancient woodland entirely would mean more tunnelling, which produces spoil which, in itself, destroys habitats when it has to be dumped somewhere. The tunnelling process creates noise and local disruption for residents and in itself creates carbon because of the vehicles that are dumping the spoil. It is not quite as simple as it sounds.
I have some sympathy for Amendment 7 and Amendment 11. It is, however, as noble Lords have capably illustrated, on an extremely complex subject. Trees sourced from the UK are most likely to succeed, and they avoid the importation of diseases, which have repeatedly caused serious problems in our landscape. Of course, diseases also come to this country through other routes. I hope the Minister can reassure us that this work is being undertaken by HS2 and will continue to be.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I think we have reached the stage at which noble Lords would like to hear the Government’s response to an interesting debate. A significant number of noble Lords has spoken on the basis of considerable experience and knowledge in this field. We have agreed an amendment today providing for consultation and a report to Parliament on the impact of HS2 phase 2a on the natural environment, including the impact on ancient woodland, which could enable local residents to be engaged in decisions affecting their environment.
As a general point, we could not support an amendment if the effect of it was—and I do not know whether this will be the case in this instance—to delay progress of HS2 phase 2a. I note the requirement in the amendment that scheduled works must not destroy any ancient woodland, either directly or indirectly, and I am not entirely clear what the impact of that would be on the progress of HS2 phase 2a.
I also note that my noble friend Lady Young has indicated she will not seek to push her amendment in this group to a vote. Like other noble Lords, I will listen with considerable interest to the Government’s response and the extent to which they can offer assurances acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for what turned out to be a very interesting debate. I was interested in the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, when she noted the complexity of these arguments put before noble Lords today. Many people do not agree on this, yet when one looks at it at face value, it is easy sometimes to reach an automatic conclusion that it must be a bad thing to cut down a tree, but people start talking about where the replacement tree would come from, and it is complex. I would like to reassure your Lordships’ House that HS2 takes its environmental obligations very seriously and follows the advice of the experts, recognising also that that advice may change as more scientific work is done in this area.
Phase 2a has been designed to avoid or reduce adverse significant effects on habitat, protected species and other features of ecological value, where reasonably practicable. However, it is not possible to build a major public transport infrastructure project without creating some adverse significant effects on the environment on or near the proposed route.
One of those effects is on biodiversity, the subject of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s first amendment. Where adverse significant effects cannot be avoided, mitigation and compensation measures are included to reduce effects on species and habitats. These include the translocation of species, the provision of replacement habitats, and special measures, such as ecological underpasses and green bridges, to facilitate the movement of species across the route. My noble friend Lord Randall mentioned that rail corridors are often good wildlife corridors.
I am proud to say that HS2 was the first major transport project in this country to seek no net loss in biodiversity on a route-wide basis. The phase 2a Bill has been in Parliament since 2017 and, in that time, there has been a step change in our national ambitions to protect and enhance our natural environment. This has not passed HS2 by. During the consideration of the Bill by the Select Committee in this House, HS2 demonstrated greater ambition on the environment. A commitment has been made to enhance the phase 2a scheme’s no net loss objective, by identifying and implementing appropriate opportunities to move towards gains in biodiversity. HS2 Ltd’s green corridor initiative will create a network of habitats along the phase 2a corridor. The Government have also committed £2 million of funding for biodiversity improvements, £5 million for the community and environment and the business and local economy funds, the phase 2a woodland fund and two area-specific funds. These funds total £11 million and they will improve biodiversity.
The legislative commitment sought by my noble friend Lord Blencathra simply goes beyond what can and should be committed to at this stage of the Bill. Casting in iron a commitment to 10% net gain, when land take on the scheme has already been fixed, would be disproportionately expensive, would entail extensive redesigns of the scheme and may lead to significant delays. In all likelihood, further land purchases would be required, going beyond the existing boundaries of the phase 2a scheme and requiring the return of the Bill to the House of Commons.
I know that some noble Lords believe that land purchases may not be required and, as I said earlier, sometimes people disagree on this, but we believe that it would probably be one of the approaches we would have to ensure to reach this legislative goal. However, there are no assurances that we would be able to do this quickly, and the Government would have no alternative other than to get additional compulsory purchase powers to deliver this requirement—if it became a requirement.
I believe that the steps that HS2 has taken, the assurances that have been given and the funds that have been provided to improve biodiversity are the correct approach for the phase 2a scheme. I reiterate that the phase 2a scheme and HS2 as a whole are already committed to no net loss of biodiversity. I hope that, on this basis, my noble friend is able to withdraw his amendment.
The noble Lord’s second amendment is on ancient woodland. We will be returning to this topic further down the track, with some amendments on reporting. I am afraid—and I believe my noble friend knows this—that I simply cannot support his amendment. When designing a complex transport infrastructure scheme, such as HS2, it is necessary to balance competing priorities. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made this point. Ancient woodland sites are fragmented and scattered across our countryside. They can be difficult to avoid without incurring substantial adverse effects to other environmental sites or local communities.
The phase 2a scheme has been designed to avoid or reduce impacts on homes, businesses and heritage sites, to reduce losses of our most valuable agricultural land and to prevent impacts to other protected sites. The scheme must also be mindful of wider issues, such as safety and affordability. Noble Lords understand that it is extremely challenging—it may be impossible—to design a scheme of this scale that avoids impacts to ancient woodland entirely, but this does not mean that we do not take this seriously. Where impacts to ancient woodland sites are unavoidable, HS2 Ltd has sought to reduce them by changing the scheme design to reduce the amount of woodland taken.
Although impacts on ancient woodland cannot fully be compensated, its loss can be addressed and somewhat mitigated through a broad range of measures, including planting native broad-leaved woodland to enhance linkages between current ancient woodlands and salvaging ancient woodland soil to be used in new sites.
I return briefly to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, who asked me to define ancient woodland. It is quite a tricky beast. Ancient woodland is defined as an area that has been wooded since 1600, but a lot of other things go into that. It could of course be the case that an ancient woodland, as currently defined, consists almost entirely of new trees. They are not necessarily old trees; it has just been woods for a long time.
This returns us to the soil translocation measures. Again, there is some disagreement as to whether it will work, but you know what, my Lords? It is worth giving it a try because, if an ancient woodland can be new trees and it is all about the fungus and the soil—I am feeling like David Bellamy—perhaps it is worth looking at the soil translocation measures. HS2 Ltd has committed to translocating soil but then spending 50 years managing and monitoring in all locations where the translocation of soils has happened. In this way, we will actually know: we will be able to determine the effectiveness of these measures and learn lessons for future infrastructure projects.
The design within the phase 2a Bill is at a relatively early stage of maturity. The area of ancient woodland loss is currently reported in various documents and is set out as the reasonable worst-case assessment. We believe that there may well be improvements as detailed designs come to pass. As I mentioned in other places, more steep cuttings and so on can help to retain ancient woodland. All sorts of things that can be done will be looked at by HS2.
This amendment would result in lengthy delays and costs to the entire phase 2a scheme as, clearly, it would have to go back to square one. There would be a significant redesign. I reassure my noble friend that I will be accepting an amendment later on relating to reporting on ancient woodland, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I hope that he will take comfort from that, and I request that he does not press his amendment.
I have an answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Framlingham. HS2 trains will run at 360 kilometres an hour. The track is designed to a slightly higher speed of 400 kilometres an hour, but of course that is pretty much within the same ballpark.
I turn, finally, to biosecurity. I will address the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, together. The amendments seek a commitment that all seeds, trees and shrubs planted on the project be sourced within the United Kingdom, due to concerns about biosecurity. That all seems fairly straightforward; various other noble Lords were then able in their contributions to provide some insight as to why it is not as straightforward as that. Biosecurity is an issue that we should, and do, take very seriously. We know the tremendous harm that can be wrought—we have heard about it today—however, it is not the only relevant concern. As some noble Lords have noted, we have to think about climate change and of other challenges that our woodlands may face. This balancing act was given detailed consideration by the House of Lords Select Committee, and I thank it for that.
Assurances have already been given that the nominated undertaker will grow all trees for the phase 2a scheme in the United Kingdom. It is not the case that HS2 Ltd will procure mature plants from abroad—only seeds. At least two-thirds of the required seed stock for phase 2a planting will come from Great Britain, with the remaining third being procured from an appropriate region of provenance within Great Britain and from non-British sources.
DfT officials agreed to consult with the Forestry Commission and Natural England, of which my noble friend Lord Blencathra is deputy chair, because these are the sorts of experts that we need guidance from. We are consulting with them to ensure that this seed stock is from an appropriate region of provenance and to secure stock from within Great Britain as far as is reasonably possible.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, naturally I am grateful to all noble Lords, both here in the Chamber and online, who have spoken both for and against my amendments. Since I spoke at length in moving them, I shall be as brief as possible now.
On Amendment 5 on net gain and Amendment 7 on native-sourced trees, I feel that the Government have not really won the argument. I have seen a note from the Government today—and my noble friend the Minister repeated the point—saying that Amendment 5 would be disproportionately expensive, could entail redesign of the scheme and would turn valuable farmland into biodiversity sites. That really is a bit desperate. Disproportionately expensive? We estimate £35 million out of a total HS2 cost of £106 billion; £35 million is just a four-month wage bill for HS2 staff.
The suggestion of redesign of the scheme is just nonsense. There is no redesign of the scheme involved in offering incentives to farmers and NGOs to voluntarily do some biodiversity schemes, either near the route or elsewhere. What redesign is involved in giving the Woodland Trust, say, £2 million to restore some ancient woodlands—or in giving the RSPB £2 billion to develop wetlands somewhere else? There is no redesign involved at all. God help us if that is what the Department for Transport officials think “net gain” means. At this stage, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson: HS2 boasts that it is trying to achieve no net loss. I have never seen anything that says that HS2 will achieve net gain. If it were achieving net gain, none of us would be speaking in favour of these amendments; they would not be necessary.
The other argument against Amendment 5 is that we would lose valuable farmland to biodiversity. Does the Department for Transport never talk to Defra? Today, Defra has launched the most massive scheme in our history to incentivise farmers to use land for biodiversity purposes. The Secretary of State, my right honourable friend George Eustice, said that it is the most significant change to farming and land management in 50 years. All my Amendment 5 on achieving 10% biodiversity net gain seeks to do is to replicate that voluntary scheme for HS2 phase 2a, and get other volunteers near the route or somewhere else to do some biodiversity net gain.
With regard to Amendment 6 on ancient woodlands, I accept that if every ancient woodland were to be avoided, that would result in route changes. That is unlikely to happen, and I accept that; I accept that this was my weakest amendment. However, I want to vote on it to signal to HS2 that we do not want this to happen with further legs. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, we will be here in a couple of years’ time—or six months’ time, according to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—looking at the next leg, another leg that will bulldoze through more ancient woodlands, and when we complain about it the department will say “Oh, it’s too late to change it now, it would mean route redesign and greatly increased costs.” I would like Peers to vote for Amendment 6 as a signal to HS2 that we do not want more ancient woodlands destroyed, up with which we will not put.
On Amendment 7, I just do not understand where the Government are coming from. We are talking about woodland to support native wildlife, not simply planting commercial forestry for timber. I accept that the advice of the Forestry Commission, on one-third of seeds from warmer climates to guard against climate change in future when you are looking at a crop lasting 50 or 70 years, may be perfectly valid to support commercial timber growing, but in the woodlands we are looking at a lot of trees that will be short and stumpy things, since Network Rail hacks down anything above 20 feet in any case if it gets too tall and interferes with the lines, which is fair enough. Is it seriously suggested that we need trees from warmer climates since one-third of our species will not survive the next 20 or 30 years? In this sort of planting for native wildlife, we are looking at the natural regeneration of rowan, holly, birch, wild cherry, hawthorn, blackthorn, alder, crab-apple and things like that. I have seen no evidence that climate change—which I agree will happen—will be so drastic that the species I have mentioned will not survive the next 20 to 30 years or so.
I listened with great care to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Lucas. I am happy, if we can guarantee that no plants come in from abroad, that we are going to get biosecure seeds that will be grown in this country. That is an improvement. I simply do not trust HS2 to go for that option. If some big supplier in the Netherlands does a deal for plants that are a fraction of the price—I have bought plants from the Netherlands for my gardens over the years at dirt cheap prices; unfortunately, half of them died but that was probably my fault—then HS2 will go for that. So I would like to push that amendment to a vote too.
My noble friend Lord Caithness was right: I should not have said that by taking nothing from abroad we are 100% guaranteed not to get new diseases, but we will have severely diminished the risk. I accept that some may come in airborne or in timber, but if we do not import plants or trees from abroad, at least we will 100% guarantee that we will not get soil-based or plant-based bugs or diseases, although the risk of airborne ones is still there. We cannot catch every disease that we may import but we can severely reduce the chances.
It is with regret that, for the first time in nine years in this House, I wish to push my Amendment 5 to a vote—against the Government’s advice—as well as, I am afraid, the two amendments afterwards.
Lord Blencathra
“Preservation of ancient woodlands
The scheduled works must not destroy any ancient woodlands, either directly or indirectly.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to Amendment 7. Does the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, wish to move it?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
In view of the fact that we are running very late, and there is an important Covid Statement coming up, I do not wish to try the patience of the House—or of the Chief Whip, for that matter, so I shall not move Amendment 7.
Covid-19 Update
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for taking this Statement, and I look forward to discussing the regulations that will flow from it tomorrow, if they successfully pass through the Commons. Although we can see that cases are going down—and that, of course, is a matter for celebration and relief—we are still seriously in the pandemic. We still seriously stuck in what seems like an endless cycle of lockdowns, which have not been working.
The Government have again wasted the opportunity, over the past few months, to get a handle on testing, tracing, isolating and supporting. Once again the hospitality industry in many parts of the country will be absolutely battered. Once again jobs will be in further jeopardy. Once again our theatres are closed. Once again older people, disabled people and people with learning difficulties remain stranded in care homes without visits from their families. Exactly what will be the difference this time that will make people’s sacrifices yield a reduction in the infection rates? When shall we see testing in care homes, for example?
Reflecting on the debate in the Commons following the Prime Minister’s and the Secretary of State’s announcements last week, we see that all MPs of all parties were desperate for two things. They were desperate to understand the basis on which these decisions were being taken, and they were desperate to understand how their constituents might be able to move from, for example, tier 3 to tier 2, or tier 2 to tier 1.
As my honourable friend Rachel Hopkins MP says:
“The good people of Luton will want to get out of tier 2 as soon as possible, but the current resources provided to Luton Borough Council for the lateral flow rapid testing pilot are insufficient to enable it to provide the level of mass testing that is being described nationally. The contained funding—£8 per person—just will not cover tests for 10% of Luton’s population, as the funding also needs to be used for the wider covid response, including wellbeing support for vulnerable residents.”
She asked the Secretary of State, and I now ask the Minister here, to
“confirm that there are national plans to provide additional support and resources to expand testing if the intention to test close contacts daily is pursued”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/20; col. 1012]
The news about the vaccine is the light at the end of the tunnel, but noble Lords must be well aware that we are still well into the tunnel, and probably will be for months to come. The only sure way to contain the virus is for people to obey personal rules and, most crucially, for us to have an effective and locally controlled test, trace, isolate and support system. We on these Benches have known this and have been asking, if not begging, for the last part of this deal for many months. Despite the Minister’s constant issuing of large numbers one way or the other, it is still not working as it should be. It is not surprising that confidence in the Government’s ability to deal with the pandemic is at a low ebb, much lower than in March and April.
Yesterday I heard the Conservative Rother Valley MP Mr Stafford say on television that he thought we were in trouble with this virus because people had broken the rules—in other words, let us blame the public. He was taken to task firmly by my honourable friend Naz Shah MP, but I have to ask the Minister whether he agrees with his colleague Mr Stafford.
When areas such as Bury and Trafford went into lockdowns in the summer, the Secretary of State promised that MPs would be involved in the decision. Has that commitment now been abandoned? Then Ministers agreed to involve regional leaders but, it has to be said, took exception to being challenged by Andy Burnham. What role do regional leaders now have in these decisions, or is the position really that the Prime Minister imposes from Downing Street restrictions on communities across the Midlands and north that will have huge impacts on the livelihoods of families and small businesses? What are the plans to alleviate the hardship that these rules will create? Leicester, Bury, Leigh and Heywood have been under a form of lockdown for months, with families forced to part and grandparents not seeing their grandchildren. Those families will want to know today what the exit strategy is and what voice they have in that strategy.
The Secretary of State in this Statement has outlined five criteria by which local lockdowns will be judged. Will that be published, with clear, transparent rules for areas entering and leaving tiers and a scorecard for every area, assessing its Covid progress against its criteria so that everyone can judge this in a transparent fashion?
What have the SAGE advisers said to the Minister about the risks which go with the proposed lifting of restrictions for Christmas? The Canadians have a very clear message about this. They say, “Stay home and stay safe”, and the reason they say that is because the worst surge in Covid-19 they have ever experienced followed six weeks after their Canadian Thanksgiving. They have given warning to their southern neighbours—the United States—that they will see an even bigger and more devastating spike following their annual gathering for turkey and gratitude at Thanksgiving. This is a warning that we need to heed. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister who is going to respond to this Statement.
The first case of this coronavirus was just over a year ago, on 17 November 2019. Since then, over 1.3 million people have died worldwide and over 50 million people have been infected. The first case here in the UK was on 29 January this year. We watched Italy deal with the cases in late winter, and I am sure that plans were being fetched out of the archives on how we might deal with a pandemic. I know that in 2015 there was a pandemic plan published for an influenza outbreak. Will the Minister tell the House what lessons were learned from that exercise?
I remember walking back to my flat in London on 17 March and my son, who was living with me then, said, “You either go home today, or you stay until this clears”. I went home, and on 23 March lockdown started. Along with many other noble Lords, I stayed away for some considerable time, and Zoom, Teams and virtual working became the new normal.
Hong Kong, which is always waiting for a SARS outbreak, keeps a stock of PPE for all care homes in the event of a pandemic. Is it too early to ask the Minister whether that is something he would now consider for England? I think it was a recommendation of that pandemic preparedness document in 2015.
One area where I would also be grateful for clarification is that of test, track and isolate. At what stage was it decided not to involve the local experts and local authorities? This caused much regional frustration, as this was the biggest public health crisis for many years, and local public health leaders were being sidelined. They know their regions well, and in areas where they did work, it worked well. Let me be clear that in a Lib Dem world, local authorities would test then track those with a positive result and support them practically and emotionally in their isolation.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has articulated, many of the public have said that they did not fully understand restrictions. When putting messages together, who did the Government picture they were talking to? From whom did they get their advice? Who did they test their messaging on? This is a case where conversations with the Plain English Campaign, or perhaps the Canadians, would have been helpful.
The last time tiered restrictions were in place, less than half of people in the UCL Covid-19 Social Study said that they fully understood the rules. With changes to the tier system and a five-day relaxation, will the Secretary of State make changes to the Government’s communications strategy to aid compliance?
Some of the Covid economic measures have helped people in the short term, such as the furlough scheme, which our colleagues in the other place fought so hard to get. However, the Government excluded more than 1 million people from Covid support and froze pay for local authority staff, who have also played a vital role in combating this pernicious disease. It is an assault on local authority workers and services.
Nurses too have been hoping for a pay rise. The Chancellor stated:
“Our health emergency is not yet over and our economic emergency has only just begun”.
He explained that the
“immediate priority is to protect people’s lives and livelihoods”,
and that the spending review is set to deliver stronger public services. He continued:
“taking account of the pay review bodies’ advice, we will provide a pay rise to over a million nurses, doctors and others working in the NHS.”
He promised
“the 2.1 million public sector workers who earn below the median wage of £24,000”
that they
“will be guaranteed a pay rise of at least £250.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/20; cols. 827-28.]
That should include porters, auxiliaries, and other key, low-paid hospital workers.
Countless families are facing serious financial hardship. More than 1 million people have lost their jobs, and the devastating impact of this pandemic will continue to be felt acutely throughout the next year. We are also facing big challenges in deep-seated inequality. We must ensure that no one is left behind. The Government win plaudits for the furlough scheme, but they have failed to provide a serious economic strategy for dealing with unemployment, climate change and inequality. I fear the Government’s Brexit plans will make job losses and business closures much worse. No deal or a bad deal would be a huge blow for businesses and jobs just when we need to be recovering from this crisis.
Although the winter plan broadly outlines the five criteria used for determining the tier system, would the Minister be more transparent about what the exact entry and exit points of the tiers will be? I understand it is not always possible to give exact criteria, but even a rough idea would help the public know what they are aiming for when the Government are asking them to make so many sacrifices.
This has been relentless since the middle of May. At a briefing meeting today, we heard that the acute care sector was at full pelt, and this is before winter sets in. The Minister is rightly proud of the Nightingale units. Do we have staffing for them? Should we need them? Many clinical staff are totally exhausted. Many question whether they want to carry on in the profession. Are the Government making sure that a safety-critical profession can reach safe staffing levels by filling tens of thousands of unfilled nursing jobs?
Children are the most vulnerable to the social impacts of local restrictions and have had formative years of their lives severely affected. With the rule of six being reinstated after national lockdown, will the Minister commit to an exemption from the rule of six for children under 12? It really does make sense.
What is the Minister’s current estimation of the likely length of the restrictions? Being open and transparent on likely timings and not creating false hope are critical to maintaining public support for any public health measures. After all, the PM said earlier this year that we would be back to normal by Christmas, and how wrong he turned out to be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for their thoughtful and searching questions on an important day’s traffic of announcements from the Government. I would like to try to tackle them as comprehensively as I can, but I assure both noble Baronesses that I will write to them on any points I fail to address in these comments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, started by saying that she felt the endless cycle of lockdowns had not been working. It is undoubtedly true that we all regret the return to a national lockdown earlier this month, but it is not true they do not work. New infections are down by a third, and that is an enormous achievement by the British public, whose discipline and obedience to the restrictions has yielded a massive dividend.
The noble Baroness said that test and trace was not working. It is undoubtedly true that when prevalence levels are so high, when there are more than half a million infections in the country and when new infections are running at five digits, it is extremely challenging for any national testing and tracing system to keep up with that sort of capacity. I beg the noble Baroness to give some ground and acknowledge the achievement of the huge scaling of the number of tests, the vast number of people who have been asked to isolate, thereby breaking the chain of transmission, and the hard work of those who work on the tracing side of the business, which has dramatically increased its performance and will continue to meet target numbers.
The noble Baroness also talked about care homes being stranded. I remind her that we have come a huge distance. I could reel off a dozen achievements in the care homes strategy, but two stand out. First is the regular testing of staff, which has now become a systematic programme that has massively protected those in care homes. There has also been the recent introduction of testing for visitors, which brings welcome relief for those needing to support and visit those in care homes, a much-valued service that needed a huge amount of work to put into place.
The noble Baroness talked about the role of the public. I have alluded to my respect for and thanks to the public. I will be crystal clear: the challenge that we face as a country is not public apathy but the virus itself. There is an absolutely vicious aspect of the virus, which is its high contagiousness. In a room with a few people together, it is quite unlike most contagious diseases in its infectiousness. When we talk about the challenge of social distancing and the need for lockdowns, it is not one another whom we blame: it is the virus itself. I encourage all those who feel frustrated to remember who the enemy is.
The noble Baroness asked whether the tiering allocations would be done in consultation with local authorities. The brief answer to that question is no. We tried that, but it did not prove a successful experiment. The acrimony and large amount of delays created long-standing problems for the implementation of the policy. Therefore, we will be implementing the tiering on a fortnightly basis from the centre. It is a big yes, however, on the approach to community testing and infection control. We absolutely want to work in partnership with local authorities and local DPHs, which have all the powers that they need to decide whom they seek to target and what incentives they would like to provide for those who need to be attracted to testing. I also say yes—absolutely—to transparency, both in terms of the publication of the numbers and our approach to our collaborations. I put on record our massive thanks to local authorities, particularly those that have been working with us over the last fortnight on our community testing programme, the publication of which earlier today is a really important framework of the local-national partnership of which I have spoken at this Dispatch Box many times. It really brings alive that commitment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, was entirely right that there was an influenza plan, but it envisaged a completely different type of virus. The lessons from the influenza plan, though relevant for the kind of flu envisaged, were not applicable for the coronavirus. A good example of that is the PPE. Had we followed the possibility of preparing a massive stock of PPE for the kind of flu envisaged in the influenza plan, we would have had the wrong kind of PPE. There was nothing that we could have done about that.
The other big learning was on mortality rates. The mortality rates for Covid-19 and the long-standing effects that it has on people are completely unlike those of the kind of flu that we were envisaging earlier. It has been a grave learning curve to have to change our plans to deal with Covid.
In relation to other learnings or things that we have moved on since then, I reiterate a theme that I have mentioned before: our commitment to national and local test and trace. Quite understandably, the noble Baroness challenges me on that point, but I gently remind her that, in February, local authorities did not have any tests; nobody had any tests. We were doing 2,000 tests a day. Therefore, it is all very well saying that we should have left test and trace to local authorities, but there simply were not the resources there to do that. It took a massive national programme and huge national effort to get us up to half a million tests a day, which is something that the local authorities, even in collaboration, could not possibly have done.
The local authorities also did not have scalable tracing capacity. The PHE capacity was designed for ultra-low prevalence rates—for when you are chasing a few dozen carriers of a disease who, perhaps, have recently arrived from overseas. It was not designed for 20,000 infections a day, which is the kind of infection rate we have been looking at recently. It was only by building the data systems, protocols and guidelines, and having tens of thousands of employees, that we have been able to put that tracing capacity in place.
We also did not have the organisational or analytical capacity to do the kind of surveillance that is done through ONS and REACT or the kind of data management that the JBC has done. Now that we have those components in place—the physical, data and diagnostic frameworks—we are in a position to work as a team, both nationally and locally. The noble Baroness is entirely right that that local insight, intelligence, empathy and leadership are absolutely critical for our success, and I encourage her and all those in the Chamber to read our community testing programme, which was published earlier today and which encapsulates the spirit of the local-national partnership of which the noble Baroness has spoken previously in the Chamber.
The noble Baroness challenges me on communications, and I will not deny that it has been one of the great challenges of the pandemic to try to explain, in a fast-changing and confusing climate, the government imperative and recommendations to the public. One of the key things that we have learned is that, sometimes, the desire to share the delicious complexity of the epidemiology stands in the way of simple communication. Sometimes, trying to find the exemptions that are fair to everyone and cater to every single consultative recommendation stands in the way of simplicity, straightforwardness and tractability.
We have learned that, sometimes, it is more important to be simple, clear and straightforward than to try to accommodate every nuance and exception. This is why we have pursued rules like the rule of six, have gone for a simple and easily understood regional tiering process and applied the 10 pm curfew, although we have updated that to an 11 pm curfew, with a drinking-up time of 10 pm. That kind of consistent messaging is what the public, quite reasonably, respond to, which is why we have moved to it.
In response to the noble Baroness’s question about under-12s, I say that there are both the communication and epidemiological reasons that children are vectors of disease. This is an uncomfortable truth because they very infrequently show any symptoms and it is incredibly inconvenient—I say this as someone with four children, three of whom are under 12. However, it would be epidemiologically irresponsible to try to make an exception in that way, and I certainly will be spending quite a lot of Christmas with my family.
In relation to hardship, the noble Baroness makes the point extremely well, and we are totally sympathetic to her point. It is undoubtedly true that the least advantaged will be the hardest hit by this epidemic. It is true because their jobs are hit hardest, particularly those in casual labour, because the virus often hits those who have the most cramped accommodation or low-quality health and because many of those who live on the borderline of life will be the ones nudged into poverty.
The Government have worked hard, with the furlough scheme in particular, to ensure that a financial safety net is put into place, but I have no doubt that there will be a moment when the economic hardship created by the pandemic will be acute, and I have no doubt that the mental health implications of that for the population will be extremely hard. The Government are extremely aware of that and we are trying our hardest to minimise the impact. One reason why we are hitting the virus hard with these tiers is to ensure that we can get the economy back as quickly as we can, mostly to the advantage of those who are hit the hardest.
The noble Baroness asked me about entry and exit points to the tiers, and I have no easy solution for her. There are very clear considerations which we will be looking at when we consider which regions go into which tier: case detection rates, particularly of those over 60; the rate at which cases are falling; the positivity rate; and pressure on the NHS. But this is an incredibly complex matrix of interdependencies. It is not simple to plop it into the kind of easy algorithm that can churn out an answer at the push of a button; nor is it easy to have one simple metric where we can say, “You’ve hit this and therefore you move this way,” or “You’ve failed and you move that way.” If it were so easy we would publish it. The best advice we can get is that we have to consider all those factors when making those decisions. We will do it in a spirit of transparency, but we will have to make tough decisions. I reassure noble Lords that it will happen every two weeks, as the Prime Minister explained, and we will seek to be as fair and thorough as we possibly can.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers. I now call the noble Lord, Lord Caine.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the great uncertainties facing those who work in the hospitality sector, particularly in those parts of the country that are in tier 3, such as my native West Riding of Yorkshire. What realistic prospect is there of areas moving from tiers 3 to 2 when the next review takes place on 16 December, so that bars and restaurants can at least open their doors for the crucial Christmas period? Rather than grouping together entire regions into tiers, is there not a strong case for more bespoke local arrangements?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is entirely right about the hospitality sector. It is a sector that we care about greatly and we recognise how hard hit it has been. None the less, we have to be considerate of the fact that the best epidemiological studies suggest that this is an environment where infection hits hard, so we are trying to hit the right balance between the two. As for local areas and trying to be more precise and focused in our tiering, that sounds like a sensible suggestion. However, we experimented with it quite thoroughly during the summer, and I remember standing here at this Dispatch Box week after week running through tweaks to various local tiers, only to find that the virus very quickly leaped from one area to another. It is a frustrating fact that the virus spreads from city to surrounding rural area and from one town to the next with alarming speed. It is also true, as discussed in response to the earlier question, that for communications it is important to keep things simple. For those reasons, we are not envisaging a change to the tiering structure at the moment.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that just a few minutes ago, before the Statement, a press report questioning the accuracy of lateral flow antigen tests said that 140,000 tests were carried out in the Liverpool City Region, and yet the Statement says that more than 300,000 people were tested in Liverpool and, with the mass testing, cases have fallen by three-quarters and Liverpool has now gone down from tier 3 to tier 2? Why can we not get the communication right so that people can have confidence in mass testing so that it can be rolled out nationally, and show the evidence that it actually works?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to remind the noble Lord that earlier today we published a fulsome programme of community testing. I would be very glad to send him a copy of it, because it lays out exactly the plan he has just described; I am hopeful that he will celebrate its publication. He is entirely right that infection rates have come down in Liverpool—not just because of mass testing but it has made a contribution—and I pay tribute to the mayor and people of Liverpool for their approach in recent months.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that when a country faces a common external threat—to use his phrase, an “enemy”—the best chance of success comes when it is united? If he does, and we are once again seeing splintering and divisions arising quickly after this further Covid Statement, will he speak to his colleague the Prime Minister and seek to persuade him to invite other political parties to get involved in a united approach; to invite Sir Keir Starmer, the leaders of the devolved Parliaments and the leaders of the other political parties so that we can move towards a co-ordinated and co-operative effort while this problem continues to blight the country? As he has demonstrated with Liverpool, there is a very strong case for people working closer together—not permanently, but temporarily—than they have done hitherto. This is required at a national and political level as well.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I share completely the noble Lord’s ambition for collaboration and a sense of national unity. I am grateful to the devolved Assemblies and the leaders of the nations for their collaborative approach, and to the leader of the Opposition for his support on a large number of matters. However, right now we need clear, simple, strong government, which is best supplied by the voted-in majority.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, at the beginning of the first lockdown in Wales, we were forbidden from going out of our borough or travelling more than five miles for exercise. It worked. Now some Government Back-Benchers are demanding more granularity in the tier areas, with restrictions being eased in boroughs with lower case numbers. If this is to be done, it must be—as the Minister just mentioned—without risking the virus spreading from adjacent high-incidence areas, as it did before. If the Government are inclined to give in to this pressure, will they at least consider imposing travel restrictions in high-incidence areas?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right. I share her sentiments. We are not inclined to give in to the pressure. There is a temptation for greater granularity, but we have learned the lesson on that one.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the Faculty of Public Health and the directors of public health have expressed reservations about what they described as the distraction of the mass community testing programme in relation to the requirement to support the vaccination programme. Can my noble friend give them and me some reassurance that the vaccination programme will be an overarching priority for resources and that the testing of symptomatic cases and of essential workers, to which he referred, is a priority for the testing programme? Can he also say whether there is a realistic level of resources to support the community testing programme to which he has twice referred positively?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I welcome my noble friend’s challenge. I reassure him that the testing and vaccination programmes will absolutely run alongside each other and that this has already been happening. They are collaborating very closely. The resources being provided for both are generous enough to ensure full delivery of the vaccine. The rollout of the community testing programme is a sign of the success of test and trace, but it will in no way have a negative impact on the deployment of the vaccine programme, which remains a number one priority for the Government.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, given that some people need to go to visit a relative who is dying or otherwise very distressed, will the Government instigate a system whereby these people can register that they will need to travel across boundaries? They may even need to stay over to provide care for some time, to enable a person to be cared for in their own home. Under the current situation, they risk being given a criminal record for breaching rules, and then they may have to try to defend themselves in retrospect after the person has died.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her characteristically compassionate question. I can reassure her that there are exceptions for essential travel. The kind of scenarios that she just described would seem to me to fit into the definition of exceptional travel. I am happy to look into whether some form of registration process is necessary but, as far as I understand, that has not proved to be the case.
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Lab)
Many scientists are expressing concern that the easing of restrictions at Christmas is going to lead to a surge in cases in January. Given this and the high incidence of Covid among 11 to 16 year-olds, are the Government actively considering extending the Christmas break for secondary school children as a way to try to curb the spread of the virus?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that we are concerned about a post-Christmas surge, but the opening of schools is an absolute number one priority. We will do everything we can to keep the schools open, and that includes schools for 11 to 16 year-olds.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, have already touched on this, but can the Minister tell me how the Government propose to stop people in the different tiers crossing borders? I declare an interest in this because I live in a tourist hot spot, which suffered badly during the first lockdown from people coming from all those neighbouring areas, which are now in tier 3 and surrounding us.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we rely on the principle of consent. We appeal to the good will of the British public. Analysis of Google and transport statistics suggests that, by and large, the British public have abided by the travel restrictions in the tiering structure, but we do keep them under analysis. It is not our intention to have surveillance and a penalty-fine culture, but we will do whatever is necessary to ensure the effective application of the tiering framework.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con) [V]
My Lords, while my noble friend the Minister is of course only responsible for health matters, would he not agree that, with the economic emergency—as the Chancellor had said—just starting, unemployment set to double by next year, and thousands of businesses going to the wall every week, to say nothing of the non-Covid health consequences of its measures, the Government would not be facing possible defeat in the other place tomorrow if they had taken a more balanced and transparent approach, particularly recently, to the Covid crisis?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, although I am only a humble Health Minister, I do believe that the frameworks we are recommending are in the best interests of the economy. If the NHS cannot cope, if trust breaks down in society, if people stay at home and will not shop or go to hospitality, and if people are laid off then the economy suffers. If the pandemic and the presence of Covid, as a driver of behaviour in our society, rolls over for month after month, then we will be the long-term sufferers of economic decline. That is the reason why we believe that the tiering and community testing is essential, and that is why we support these measures.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
Can the Minister confirm that the initial advice from the independent committee on vaccinations is that, after NHS and care homes staff, priority should be given to people over 80 in the rest of the population in order of age and risk? That is medically sound advice, but in the wider national interest would it not be preferable that those who contribute to recovery and education are prioritised over the more elderly who successfully kept themselves free from the virus and do not expect to continue to benefit at the expense of working individuals?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord makes a fair point. We looked at the very scenario that he describes, but ultimately our priorities are to save life, protect the NHS and keep schools and the economy going. The best way of doing that is to prioritise the elderly because there is a direct correlation between illness from Covid and age. The best way in which we can protect society and the economy is to ensure that those who are oldest get the vaccine first.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, clear messaging by the Government in relation to Covid is crucial. Can the Minister make it clear that three households meeting over five days in one house at Christmas is not compulsory and that it is perfectly acceptable to take the view that it is not worth the risk? Given that a few weeks ago mixing of households was the demon in the piece, does he agree that having Christmas lunch with five others in a Covid-secure restaurant would be far safer than doing so in an excitable family home with minimum PPE security? Plus, of course, it would bring an important additional benefit to the economy.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for what I think was his broad point. I did not quite understand the exact scenario in the restaurant that he described, but I think that he was alluding to the difficult but important decision that every family has to make. He is entirely right: we do not all have to go mad over Christmas and see as many people as we can. Some people will make the quite sensible decision to show restraint and to share the holiday with those they love but not necessarily to travel or see a very large number of people. I salute those people and encourage that kind of attitude.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, perhaps I may come back to of my noble friend Lady Thornton’s question on test and trace. The noble Lord accepted that it was extremely challenging—those were his words—and said that we should accept that there had been a huge scaling up, but we were told that a world-class test and trace system would solve things, and it is far from that. The inconsistencies in results are causing a high degree of scepticism. Can he outline further how the Government will meet that extreme challenge?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that I accept the premise of the question. The scepticism that the noble Baroness describes has not stopped millions of people stepping forward to have tests. Our experience is that those who have direct experience of test and trace—whether they are people who use the app, people who turn up for testing, people who go to hospital and have tests through the NHS or people who are traced—speak of the good service and experience that they have. It is undoubtedly true that test and trace takes a hammering in the press, and its reputation has been hard hit by sceptics who talk down its performance, but, generally speaking, those who actually experience it speak highly of the service.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, just 10 days ago, Professor David Eyre of the University of Oxford reported that, for most people, being infected with Covid-19 protects against reinfection for at least six months. He said:
“This is really good news, because we can be confident that, at least in the short term, most people who get COVID-19 won’t get it again.”
Washington State University research found that just one case out of the multiple millions worldwide suggested that waning antibody levels or a poorly developed immune system to Covid could put people at risk of reinfection. I am aware that studies need to be replicated, but this good news seems to be a very well-kept secret, ignored on the official government web page on the relevance of antibody tests. What would give the Government confidence that potent antibodies linger beyond at least six months in the majority of cases and how small would the tiny minority of proven cases of reinfection have to be in order for them to say that this risk is a price worth paying for society to begin to get back on its feet?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Government—and I personally—are extremely interested in this area. Early findings of a study by the Coronavirus Immunology Consortium and Public Health England, which have not been peer reviewed yet, suggest that a strong cellular immune response is likely to be present in the majority of adults six months after infection. At present, there is not enough evidence to rule out people who have positive T cell responses or antibodies to Covid-19 from potentially still playing a role in transmitting the virus to others. However, further research on the level of sterilising immunity provided by natural infection should be available from the SIREN study and the Oxford healthcare workers study before the end of the year. I look forward to the results of those studies very much.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, I remind that House that not so long ago the Government put their arms around the homeless and removed them from the streets. They did a highly commendable job because it was the first time that a Government had taken responsibility for rough sleepers en masse. They did not quite finish the job because it was difficult to bring them in. Can we also put our arms around the roughly 200,000 people who, according to the LGA, will fall homeless through eviction? The best thing that we can do is to keep people in their houses. It cuts the cost of poverty and it cuts the cost of homelessness. When people slip into homelessness, the costs double.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord for his very generous comments. I commend him for his advocacy both in the instance of Covid and for his lifelong commitment to standing up for the homeless. He is right that the homeless are undoubtedly super-vulnerable to a pandemic such as Covid and that there is a finance problem for the charities which look after those who live on the streets. He is right that those who have trouble paying their rent and face eviction are in a particularly difficult position. That is why we have put in place a mortgage relief scheme, continue to support the furlough scheme and keep in mind the plight of those who struggle to pay their household bills.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has scratched, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would like to indulge in a little flight of fantasy by bringing two different elements together. The first is the Oxford vaccine, which appears to be much cheaper and easier to distribute than the other vaccines currently on offer. The second is the pressure on our foreign aid budget. Will my noble friend have a word with his Foreign Office colleagues and see whether it is possible to bring the two together, using the aid programme to distribute the Oxford vaccine as soon as any surplus supply becomes available? Distributing it to our aid recipients to help them with their own battles against Covid will show that Britain is a proud world leader in supplying practical humanitarian support.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend makes a very interesting point. Our priority right now is to vaccinate the British public. He is right that there are many vaccines available and Britain has made a massive investment in vaccines. We are also supporters of the international distribution of vaccines and the fair access of the developing world and those around the world to vaccines. That is why we support COVAX, Gavi and CEPI. He is right that there is an opportunity somewhere, and we are entertaining ways of supporting such a vision.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
I apologise. Does the Minister have any estimate of the number of people who are currently in self-isolation? Does he agree that if these people were to be given high priority for testing, their period of self-isolation would be shortened and more people would be willing to go into self-isolation because they would not lose so much money if they could be tested quickly and resume their ordinary lives?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord hits the nail on the head. We have already brought into place a test-to-release programme for foreign visitors and we are looking at ways in which such a principle could be applied elsewhere.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has withdrawn. We are not sure whether we have the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We do not. I now call the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, could my noble friend comment on reports in today’s press that four hospitals only, in the whole of England, are busier than last winter? Could he explain how on Saturday Michael Gove warned that, unless the latest regulations were implemented, every hospital in England risked being overwhelmed by Covid-19 cases? Before our debate tomorrow, could he publish the modelling on which this assertion was based?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I saw the press reports to which my noble friend refers. I remind him that their suggestion that we should be running our hospital system at 99% capacity during a pandemic is not reasonable. It would put our flexibility to deal with any increase in infections over the winter months in an incredibly precarious state. Running at around 88%, which is the current rate, is pragmatic. It would take very little for the 600,000-plus group of people who carry the Covid infection at the moment to have an impact on those bed numbers before the NHS was overwhelmed. That was the point that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made, and I thought he made it very well.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a matter of regret that it was not possible to reach agreement on the tiering system with local authority leaders. However, local authorities will be crucial to its implementation, not just now but after Christmas. Birmingham City Council has succeeded in recruiting 468 Covid community champions and has regular meetings with faith leaders and public health. Can the Minister assure noble Lords that close co-operation with local communities, authorities and leaders, irrespective of their party allegiance, will continue, because otherwise we will not succeed?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely endorse the noble Baroness’s points. I know well the very good work that both Birmingham and the entire West Midlands are doing. Recruitment of champions and liaison with faith leaders are exactly the kinds of interventions that local authority leadership can provide. It is absolutely at the heart of our local and national approach. We are providing the kind of support that local authorities need to pursue these plans, which includes military personnel, testing facilities, data and analysis, and financial support, where necessary.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the importance that he attaches to the safe return of fans to designated sports events, the reopening of many gyms and sporting activities across England, and the financial package announced last week for key sports in need of urgent financial assistance. Does he agree that we now need to help all clubs, particularly grass-roots clubs, to fulfil the critical role of ensuring that the population is as active and healthy as possible, to provide a strong counter to the Covid virus? Delivering and funding that objective must remain a key priority for the Government.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity to mention sports and to thank him for his advocacy of sports, both national and grass roots, during the epidemic. He is entirely right: if there has been one striking aspect of the pandemic, it has been the way that the British public have missed the elite sports that they follow and support avidly, and have increasingly participated in their personal fitness and sport. I cannot help thinking that this pandemic will be something of an inflection point in the British people’s attitude to sport. I support the department’s campaign to encourage people to do more sport. We are doing an enormous amount to open stadia. I am pleased that we have new guidelines that will enable large stadia to open, albeit with social distancing. But my noble friend is entirely right that we must do more to support the grass roots, and I know that colleagues in the DCMS are doing as much as they can to help.