House of Commons

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 26 May 2021

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).

[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Business before Questions

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

Highgate Cemetery Bill

Bill read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

What steps she is taking with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help ensure an equal economic recovery from the covid-19 outbreak for women.

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

We have targeted economic support at those who need it most, including with unprecedented levels of support in sectors that are big employers of women, such as retail, hospitality and leisure, with the public sector also being a large employer of women. For private firms, the suspension of business rates until June will save employers almost £10 billion, helping to protect these jobs.

[Chris Elmore]

I thank the Minister for her answer. Analysis by the Women’s Budget Group has highlighted that young women aged 18 to 25 are the largest group to be furloughed, by age and gender. Will the Minister set out what discussions she is having with the Chancellor to ensure that those women are supported, so that we do not have a lost generation of young women even further adversely affected by the pandemic?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observation. The economic impact of the pandemic by gender is not clearcut. Furlough take-up and redundancy impacts are affecting men and women differently. We know that women are slightly more likely to have taken up the furlough scheme, but the latest employment figures continue to show a higher redundancy rate for men. So our economic package of support is to address everyone, and if he looks at the support for jobs package, the summer economic update that the Chancellor announced, as well as announcements in the Budget on the kickstart scheme and so on, he will see that all these things are addressing the issues on employment for young people and especially for those young women.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

Evidence shows that mothers have been harder hit by the pandemic than fathers in terms of redundancies and their employment opportunities. Does my hon. Friend support the words of the Secretary of State for International Trade yesterday when she was advocating flexible working in order to overcome some of these problems? Would the Minister, like me, support seeing job sharing as part of a forthcoming employment Bill?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I always support the Secretary of State for International Trade. It is a pleasure to work with her, and we definitely want to see more flexible working and more job sharing. I cannot say for certain what will be part of the employment Bill, but we will speak to colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and across government.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

The December 2019 Queen’s Speech promised an employment Bill that would extend

“redundancy protections to prevent pregnancy and maternity discrimination”.

Despite ministerial assurances of action during my Westminster Hall debate on this issue last month, the employment Bill and that promise are nowhere to be seen. If the UK Government are not going to deliver on their promise to prevent pregnancy and maternity discrimination, will they devolve employment law to Scotland so that the Scottish Parliament can deliver this much-needed reform?

[Kemi Badenoch]

This is a very serious issue. We are having a roundtable with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to look at pregnancy discrimination. I reiterate that covid-19 and the new employment Bill do not change the fact that there is a law on pregnancy and maternity discrimination—there is no place for it in any circumstances. Employers should be regularly reviewing their risk assessments for all pregnant workers and implementing any controls needed.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The economic impact of covid has hit women disproportionately hard. According to the Women’s Budget Group, 52% of people who have been furloughed are women, despite their making up only 47% of the workforce. The Government have promised to strengthen pregnancy and maternity protections “when parliamentary time allows”. Does the Minister not agree that this is an urgent priority given that the end of furlough is approaching and there is grave concern about unequal job losses in the autumn?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I refer the hon. Lady to my answer to the earlier question; this is not what the evidence tells us. I have seen the Women’s Budget Group report. What we are seeing is that men are more likely to be made redundant and women are more likely to be furloughed. The furlough is part of the economic package of support we have put in place. It is not right to say that women are more economically impacted when they are still having their jobs, but we do recognise that when the furlough scheme ends, we may see some changes. We are working to protect everybody in this crisis, both men and women. We have made a statement on the employment Bill, which is that the Government are committed to bringing it forward to protect and enhance workers’ rights. But given the profound impact that the pandemic is having on the economy and on the labour market, now is not the right time to introduce the employment Bill. In the interim, the Government have taken the unprecedented but necessary steps I mentioned to support business and protect jobs.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

What equalities impact assessments the Government have conducted on their proposals to introduce voter ID.

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

The Government take their public sector equality duty extremely seriously. In 2021, the Cabinet Office commissioned a nationally representative survey on the ownership of photo identification. The findings from that research and our ongoing engagement with the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders, including a wide range of charities and civil society organisations, will continue to inform our plans to ensure that voter identification is rolled out in a way that is inclusive for all voters.

[Meg Hillier]

I could probably write an essay on identity documents, having been responsible for the matter when I was in government a decade ago. I am particularly concerned about constituents of mine who are Commonwealth citizens, who are often seeking to achieve status in the UK but whose identity documents are with the Home Office—they do not have those identity documents to prove that they can vote. What is the Minister’s solution for those individuals?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The legislation will make it clear that local authorities must provide a voter card free of charge if an elector does not have one of the approved forms of photographic identification.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Research by the Royal National Institute of Blind People shows that one in 10 blind voters and less than half of partially sighted voters could vote independently and in secret at the most recent general election. That is unacceptable. Given the barriers, is the Minister not concerned that the introduction of voter ID will only make it even more difficult for people living with sight loss to vote independently and in secret?

[Kemi Badenoch]

We looked into the impact of voter ID on disabled voters, and our research, which draws on the most comprehensive information available, indicates that 97% of disabled electors report having at least one form of photographic identification, so we do not believe that it will affect them. As I mentioned in response to the previous question, we will have legislation that will make it clear that local authorities must provide a voter card free of charge so that people will still be able to vote. We must remember why we are doing this: no one should lose their right to vote because someone else has assumed their identity. Personation is very difficult to prove and prosecute, but it is not a victimless crime and it is absolutely right that we resolve the matter.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Whether the Government are taking steps to tackle gender-targeted pricing.

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

Prices in the UK are set by competition, not the Government, but it is unlawful to offer goods or services to women and men at a range of different prices. The Equality Act 2010 provides that a retailer must not discriminate against the customer either by failing to provide goods or services, or by providing them on different terms, on the basis of someone’s sex.

[Christine Jardine]

It is more than two years since I first raised this issue in this place and very little has changed: women still pay, on average, 20% more for basic goods and services. We have heard already today that women have been hardest hit in this pandemic and we know there is a gender pay gap. If someone comes, like me, from a single-parent family with three daughters, that family faces a much bigger challenge in the current circumstances. The Minister has said that it is unlawful; will the Government please take steps to ensure that the 2010 Act is enforced when it comes to gender-targeted pricing?

[Kemi Badenoch]

It is probably worth my letting the hon. Lady know that I understand what she says but disagree with the premise and the argument she makes. It is important to recognise that in a legal sense there is no discrimination involved in gender pricing, as there is nothing to stop a woman buying a product marketed towards men, or vice versa. The Government want a society in which women and men are free to make the choices that suit them, regardless of rigid stereotypes. I am afraid I think that the Bill the hon. Lady wanted to enact would actually have had the unintended consequence of reinforcing stereotypes.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

What steps she is taking with the Secretary of State for Education on increasing gender-balanced representation in take up of STEAM subjects.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that more women can take up the opportunities in science and technology. Currently, only one in five of the technology workforce are women, but projects such as the skills bootcamps aim to turn that around. Of the 2,799 attendees at our first bootcamps, 47% were women. In the west midlands, the courses on women in data and women in software were oversubscribed by around four times. We are investing another £43 million to provide another 16,000 places.

[Stuart Anderson]

Science, technology and biomedicine have been at the forefront of our response to the covid-19 crisis and they will help us on our road to recovery. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that we get more people into those careers, including stem cell research for women?

[Vicky Ford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: bioscience is a really important area and never more so than during this pandemic. It is our chemists, our biochemists and our biologists who are leading our way out of covid. The work that we do through our science learning partnerships aims to increase the take-up of triple science at GCSE—chemistry, physics and biology—and that will make sure that more of our young people can become the scientists of the future.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on plans to increase the number of prison places for women.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

Investing in the women’s custodial estate will improve conditions for female prisoners through modern, gender-specific and trauma-informed design. It will further ensure capacity is in place to give effect to sentences imposed by the independent courts.

[Janet Daby [V]]

When mothers are imprisoned for minor offences, the separation and loss for the child are detrimental to their wellbeing. The charity Women in Prison tells us that the most effective way to tackle the causes of crime and to prevent women from reoffending is to invest in women’s centres. Given that the Government’s own female offender strategy pledges to reduce the number of women in prison, why are they proposing to invest £150 million on new female prison places, and what representation has the Minister made to recommit to reducing the number of women in prison?

[Alex Chalk]

It is important that we continue to invest in women’s centres in the community, and that is exactly what we are doing. For the very reason that the hon. Lady makes about keeping relationships with the family, part of the money that she refers to will go to providing accommodation so that individuals can make family visits to those women sentenced to custody, to keep those relationships going. Prisons need to be a place of security, but they must also be a place of humanity, rehabilitation and hope, and that is what we are investing in.

[Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)]

What steps she is taking to help ensure that children throughout the UK have equality of opportunity.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)]

This Government believe in levelling up for people of all ages and we are investing more in the education of students from lower-income families so that they can unlock opportunities. Our weighted national funding formula and the pupil premium fund academic interventions as well as important pastoral initiatives and are further supplemented during this difficult time by the national tutoring programme and the holiday activities and food programme, which will also help those students.

[Nicola Richards]

Young people in my constituency deserve the very best opportunities outside of education. That is why I have been campaigning for an OnSide youth centre in West Bromwich, which has proved so successful in Wolverhampton. Will my hon. Friend support my campaign for a state-of-the-art youth centre, backed by local business, so that we can truly level up opportunities for young people in West Bromwich East?

[Vicky Ford]

I massively congratulate my hon. Friend on her true passion and interest in the young people of West Bromwich. The Government recognise the impact of youth services, which are improving the life chances and wellbeing of young people. The Government have already funded OnSide with £6 million last year to support young people during the pandemic. Another £30 million of the Youth Investment Fund has been committed as capital investment for 2021-22. That will provide investment in new resources as well as in refurbished safe spaces. Further details of the timetable and allocations will be announced very soon, and I recommend that my hon. Friend keeps a sharp look out for that announcement.

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

What steps she is taking to support disabled people in the workplace during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

Over the past year, there have been 2,500 more Disability Confident employers, a much more flexible system and greater extended support through Access to Work going forward.

[Marion Fellows [V]]

According to the Business Disability Forum, 11% of employers furloughed a disabled employee at the beginning of the pandemic after failing to provide reasonable adjustments. Disabled people have already been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, but it is clear that disabled workers are continuing to be forced out of employment through a lack of access to reasonable adjustments. Will the Government introduce mandatory timescales for employer-implementation of reasonable adjustments and end the Access to Work payment cap to prevent the disability employment gap from widening further?

[Guy Opperman]

As I outlined earlier, there are greater numbers of Disability Confident employers and Access to Work has been adapted during covid to help the disabled, with greater online assistance, extended timeframes, flexibility, mental health support and much, much more, about which I will get the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), to write in specific detail to the hon. Lady.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to bring forward legislative proposals to end conversion therapy.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

What progress her Department has made on bringing forward legislative proposals to ban conversion therapies.

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

We set out in the Queen’s Speech our intention to ban conversion therapy, which is an abhorrent practice. We will consult in September and legislate as soon as possible. We are also putting in place support for victims.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us go to Dehenna Davison.

[Dehenna Davison [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I hope you can hear me today.

I was really delighted to see the ban on conversion therapy appear in the Queen’s Speech, but, as we know, conversion therapy is an issue not just in the UK, but right around the globe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these practices should not just be outlawed in the UK, but that we should work with our global partners to support LGBT safety worldwide?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are proud that we are instituting the UK’s first ever international LGBT conference under the theme of “Safe To Be Me”, which is about protecting people from persecution worldwide. The conference will be led by Lord Herbert and will take place in June next year. I look forward to welcoming my hon. Friend to appear at it.

[Dame Diana Johnson [V]]

I am pleased that the consultation will be starting soon. Does the Secretary of State intend for the Cass review to be part of the consultation, and will the consultation address issues of sexual orientation and gender identity?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The consultation will address the issues of gender identity and sexual orientation. The Cass review is taking place separately; that is a matter for the Department of Health, but of course we want to ensure that the under-18s are protected from making irreversible decisions about their own future.

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

What steps she is taking with the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to promote gender equality through the UK’s presidency of the G7.

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

We have a huge opportunity, as we recover from covid-19, for women across the world to build back better. That is why I have convened a group of leaders in the G7 Gender Equality Advisory Council, under the leadership of Sarah Sands, to push for better education for women and girls, economic empowerment and ending violence against women across the world.

[Julie Marson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her response; that is great news. Can she tell me whether the Gender Equality Advisory Council will be working to improve women’s and girls’ participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education and industries?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am pleased to say that the GEAC is packed with inspirational STEM leaders, such as Professor Sarah Gilbert, who spearheaded the Oxford vaccine, and the CERN director general Dr Fabiola Gianotti; they are leading figures. A key aim of the GEAC is to ensure that more girls and women are involved in the industries of the future such as technology and science, so that they can get those well-paid jobs and help to drive forward progress across the world.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

At the G7 summit in August 2019, the Government made three commitments for domestic progress on gender equality: delivery of the Domestic Abuse Bill; reform of parental leave; and action on workplace sexual harassment. But last year just 3.5% of fathers took shared parental leave, and the TUC found that one in two women experience sexual harassment at work. We are still waiting for the Government to respond to consultations on both those issues. What does the Minister think it says about her record that only one of those commitments has so far been completed? When will she bring forward reforms to these schemes?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As the hon. Member points out, we have brought forward and enacted the leading Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Minister for Safeguarding is on the Front Bench; she has done a fantastic job on that. We will shortly be bringing forward the response on sexual harassment. Moreover, I want to ensure that at this year’s G7 leaders across the world are held to account for their record in protecting women and girls.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

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

The UK is using our presidency of the G7 this year to champion women’s and girls’ rights at home and around the world with an independent Gender Equality Advisory Council to bring fresh ideas and new voices to the heart of G7 discussions. The council met for the second time last week, and I look forward to hearing its recommendations to G7 leaders in June. It is important that women and girls are at the heart of our plans to build back better.

[Stuart Anderson]

In the recent Queen’s Speech there were many opportunities to level up across the country, including in my great constituency of Wolverhampton South West. What is my right hon. Friend doing to see that we can unleash the potential of some of our more deprived areas to build back better after covid?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are determined to tackle the scourge of geographical inequality. That is why we have taken on responsibility for the Social Mobility Commission, which is going to focus on the three Es—employment, education and enterprise—and we are currently recruiting a chair to spearhead that agenda.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

How will the Secretary of State ensure that the voices of survivors of so-called conversion therapy and the people who support them will be heard in the consultation on a Bill to outlaw all conversion therapies, which have no place in all settings and all LGBT+ statuses, regardless of whether someone is consenting or coerced?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities has already met survivors of conversion therapy, and we are determined that they should be closely involved in the consultation we are holding on the forthcoming legislation. I completely agree with the hon. Lady: it is an abhorrent practice that we need to stop in the United Kingdom.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

In Redcar and Cleveland, and across the country, the pandemic has left many people without the certainty of work, but particularly those disabled and differently abled people who already feel disadvantaged in the jobs market. We have announced an ambitious plan for jobs, but can the Minister point to specific interventions he is making to help more disabled people into work in Redcar and Cleveland and the wider Tees Valley?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

There has been an 800% increase in Disability Confident employers in the Durham-Tees Valley area. The newly re-elected Conservative Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, and our new Hartlepool MP are utterly committed to ensuring that more disabled people get access to work and into work.

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

In the UK, two weeks’ parental leave and pay is in place after stillbirth, but there is no such support for anyone who has experienced a miscarriage before 24 weeks of pregnancy. Will the Minister support my calls to the UK Government and allow families to grieve for their profound loss by legislating for paid leave for everyone that experiences miscarriage?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. We have looked at seeking to change the rules about neonatal leave. Any grieving situation is incredibly difficult, but as we work towards the employment Bill, we will make sure that we can come up with a rounded view for anybody that is grieving.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]]

Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said to the Select Committee that she ended the role of her LGBT advisory panel because there were basic disagreements over the rights of trans people to self-ID. Argentina, our co-chair of the Equal Rights Coalition, whose conference we host next June, has legally accommodated self-ID for trans people since 2012 without a problem, and now more members of the coalition are following Argentina’s example without a problem. How is she going to find a new panel that both has authority and agrees with her in the continuing refusal to accept the right of trans people to self-ID? Can she explain how Britain can host a conference entitled “Safe To Be Me” without supporting the right to be “me”?

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

The former LGBT advisory panel’s tenure ended on 31 March 2021. I am grateful to its members for the important insights that they have provided on important policy areas such as ending conversion therapy and the impact of covid on LGBT people. The Prime Minister has appointed Lord Herbert as special envoy for LGBT rights. That role will have an international and domestic focus, and I am confident that we will be able to work with our international partners on this issue. We believe that the current provisions in the Gender Recognition Act 2004 Act allow for those who wish legally to change their genders to do so, so that it is safe to be them and they have the right to be themselves. We have therefore decided, as we have said before to my hon. Friend, that the Act will not be changed.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]]

My constituent Julia was breastfeeding her child in a park when a stranger started taking long-lens photos of her. She and I were shocked that there was nothing that could be done about this unwelcome intrusion. Does the Minister think this is an acceptable situation and, if not, will she support action to prevent this kind of voyeurism?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this very important topic. This is totally unacceptable behaviour and I hope he will welcome the Government’s forthcoming violence against women and girls strategy, which we will be publishing later this year, drawing in the views of more than 180,000 members of the public to help shape our policies for the coming decade. This is unacceptable and we will deal with it.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 May.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

The thoughts of the House, following the decision by the court this morning, will be with the family and friends of the Hillsborough 96 and the hundreds more who were injured. I know that the Crown Prosecution Service has said it will meet with the families again to answer any questions they may have.

I know colleagues from across the House will want to join me in paying tribute to our former colleague, Mike Weatherley, who sadly died last week. He was a dedicated parliamentarian and a fantastic servant to the people of Hove.

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

[Dr Poulter [V]]

I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising NHS doctor who has been working on the frontline of the NHS during the pandemic. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 resulted in local authority commissioning of addiction services. Ten years later, almost all addiction services are now run by non-NHS providers. The result is that the numbers in alcohol treatment have fallen, many alcohol detoxes take place in an unplanned manner, and opiate and alcohol deaths are at record levels. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for the sake of patients, we must bring the commissioning and provision of addiction services back to the NHS, and will he meet me and experts in this field to discuss how we can get this right?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to thank my hon. Friend for everything that he has done throughout this pandemic in the NHS, but also for raising this vital issue. I am proud that under this Government we are seeing the biggest increase for 15 years in treatment for substance abuse, but the specific points he raises we will make sure we address with Dame Carol Black, who is undertaking a review of drugs and treatment. We will make sure that his point is fed in.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

May I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Hillsborough and Mike Weatherley?

This morning, the Prime Minister’s former closest adviser said:

“When the public needed us most the Government failed.”

Does the Prime Minister agree with that?

[The Prime Minister]

The handling of this pandemic has been one of the most difficult things this country has had to do for a very long time. None of the decisions has been easy. To go into a lockdown is a traumatic thing for a country. To deal with a pandemic on this scale has been appallingly difficult. We have at every stage tried to minimise loss of life—to save lives and to protect the NHS—and we have followed the best scientific advice that we can.

[Keir Starmer]

Can I remind the Prime Minister that one year ago, almost to the day, he said of his former adviser

“in every respect he has acted responsibly, legally and with integrity”?

This morning that same adviser has said that senior Ministers—these are his words—

“fell disastrously short of the standards that the public has a right to expect of its government”

and that lives were lost as a result. Does the Prime Minister accept that central allegation and that his inaction led to needless deaths?

[The Prime Minister]

No. Of course, all those matters will be reviewed in the course of the public inquiry that I have announced. I notice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is fixated, as ever, on the rear-view mirror, while we on this side of the House are getting on with our job of rolling out the vaccines, making sure that we protect the people of this country. That has been the decisive development on which I think people are rightly focusing. I can tell the House that, in spite of the continuing concern that we have about the Indian variant, we are increasing our vaccination programme at such a rate that we can now ask everybody over 30 to come forward and get vaccinated.

[Keir Starmer]

It is no good the Prime Minister attacking me. It is his former chief adviser who is looking back and telling the world how useless the Prime Minister was in taking key decisions—his former adviser.

One of the most serious points made this morning is that the Prime Minister failed to recognise the severity of this virus until it was too late, dismissing it as another “scare story” like the swine flu. Does the Prime Minister recognise that account of his own behaviour? If so, will he apologise for being so complacent about the threat that this virus posed?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think anybody could credibly accuse this Government of being complacent about the threat that this virus posed at any point. We have worked flat out to minimise loss of life and to protect the NHS, while the Opposition have flip-flopped from one position to another, backing curfew one day and opposing it the next, backing lockdowns one day and opposing them the next, calling for tougher border controls one day and then saying that quarantine is a blunt instrument the next. We have got on with the job of protecting the people of this country from one of the worst pandemics in living memory, if not the worst in living memory. We have turned the corner, and it is no thanks to the loyal Opposition.

[Keir Starmer]

I can see that the evidence of his former adviser is really getting to the Prime Minister this morning in that response.

Another incredibly serious statement from the Prime Minister’s former adviser this morning concerns the conduct of the Health Secretary, including an allegation that the Health Secretary misled other Ministers and officials on a number of occasions. I do not expect the Prime Minister to respond to that, but can he confirm: did the Cabinet Secretary advise the Prime Minister that he—the Cabinet Secretary—had

“lost confidence in the Secretary of State’s honesty”?

[The Prime Minister]

The answer to that is no. I am afraid I have not had the benefit of seeing the evidence that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is bringing to the House, but I must say that I think what the people of this country want us all to do is to get on with the delicate business of trying to reopen our economy, restore people’s freedoms and get back to our way of life by rolling out the vaccine. I would have thought that that was a much more profitable line of inquiry for the right hon. and learned Gentleman today. That is what I think the people of this country want us to focus on.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. Either his former adviser is telling the truth, in which case the Prime Minister should answer the allegations, or the Prime Minister has to suggest that his former adviser is not telling the truth, which raises serious questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing him in the first place. There is a pattern of behaviour here. There was clearly a lack of planning, poor decision making, a lack of transparency and a Prime Minister who was absent from the key decisions, including five early Cobra meetings, and who was, to quote his former adviser,

“1,000 times far too obsessed with the media”.

Another central allegation briefed overnight is that the Prime Minister delayed the circuit break over the autumn half-term because covid was “only killing 80-year-olds”. I remind the Prime Minister that over 83,000 people over 80 have lost their lives to this virus and that his decision to delay for 40 days, from the SAGE guidance on 21 September until 31 October, will be seen as one of the single biggest failings of the last year. Having been told of the evidence, does the Prime Minister accept that he used the words “Covid is only killing 80-year-olds” or words to that effect?

[The Prime Minister]

We saw what happened during the pandemic. Particularly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the September lockdown and my approach to it, and the very, very difficult decision that the country faced. Of course, this will be a matter for the inquiry to go into, but we have an objective test, in the sense that there was a circuit breaker, of the kind he describes, in Wales. It did not work, and I am absolutely confident that we took the decisions in the best interests of the British people. When it comes to hindsight, I just remind him that he actually—he denied this at the time and then had to correct it—voted to stay in the European Medicines Agency, which would have made it impossible for us to do the vaccine roll-out at the pace that we have.

[Keir Starmer]

It is not me giving evidence this morning; it is his former adviser, and I note the Prime Minister is careful not to refute these allegations. What we are seeing today is the latest chapter of a story of confusion, chaos and deadly misjudgments from this Government—from a Prime Minister governing by press release, not a plan. In the last 24 hours, we have seen the same mistakes made again, with the ridiculous way 1.7 million people in Bolton, Burnley, Bedford, Blackburn, Kirklees, Hounslow, Leicester and North Tyneside have been treated. In the light of the drip of these very serious allegations, the failure of the Prime Minister to provide even basic answers and continuing mistakes affecting millions of people, does the Prime Minister now recognise he must bring forward the timing of the public inquiry into covid, and that it should start this summer and as soon as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

No. As I have said before, I am not going to concentrate valuable official time on that now while we are still battling a pandemic. I thought actually that was what the House had agreed on. The right hon. and learned Gentleman continues to play these pointless political games, while we get on with delivering on the people’s priorities: 40 new hospitals; 8,771 more police on our streets; we are getting on with sorting out the railways; we are giving people—young people—the opportunity of home ownership in a way they have never had before, with 95% mortgages; and we have vaccinated. We have delivered 60 million vaccinations across this country, more than—he loves these European comparisons—any other European country, including 22 million second doses. That, with great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is I believe the priority of the British people. That is really what they are focused on, while he voted to stay in the European Medicines Agency. The Opposition vacillate; we vaccinate. They deliberate; we deliver.

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

I am sure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister remembers with great fondness his trip in July last year to the Discovery School in Kings Hill, but he probably remembers best his meeting with Tony Hudgell, an amazing and inspirational young boy, who had at that point already raised a million and a half pounds for charity and been awarded by my right hon. Friend the Points of Light award, which he so generously hands out to those who have achieved so much. Will he join Tony, Tony’s parents, Paula and Mark, me and many others around the country in campaigning for Tony’s law—new clause 56 to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill? This is a very minor change to a very important Bill that would bring child abuse sentencing in line with that for adult abuse. I know he has put his heart into this space, and I am sure we can all look forward to his support.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, and of course I remember Tony very well. I remember his incredible campaign and the amount of money he raised, and I thank him for it. All I can say is it is very important that cases like that—injustices such as that suffered by Tony—receive the full force of the law. People who commit serious offences against children can receive exactly the same penalties as those who commit serious offences against adults, but we will keep this under review, and if there is a gap in the law—I will study his amendment very closely—we will make sure that we remedy it.

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

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks on those seeking justice for Hillsborough? To quote the song, “You’ll Never Walk Alone.”

One hundred and twenty-eight thousand people have died of coronavirus in the United Kingdom. This morning the Prime Minister’s most senior former adviser, Dominic Cummings, apologised on behalf of the UK Government. He said:

“When the public needed us most”

we “failed.” We know the Prime Minister made a series of catastrophic errors throughout the crisis: he went on holiday when he should have been leading efforts to tackle the pandemic; he was too slow to go into lockdown; he failed to secure our borders; he sent millions of people back to their offices prematurely. There is no doubt that these mistakes cost many thousands of lives. When even a disgraced figure like Dominic Cummings is willing to own up and apologise, is it not time that the Prime Minister does the same?

[The Prime Minister]

I take full responsibility for everything that has happened, and as I have said before, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, both in this House and elsewhere, I am truly sorry for the suffering that the people of this country have experienced. But I maintain my point that the Government acted throughout with the intention to save life and protect the NHS, and in accordance with the best scientific advice; that is exactly what we did.

[Ian Blackford]

The evidence we have heard this morning is extraordinary but, sadly, not surprising. It paints a familiar pattern of behaviour: a negligent Prime Minister more concerned with his own self-interest than the interests of the United Kingdom. When people were dying, the United Kingdom Government were considering chicken pox parties and joking about injecting the Prime Minister with covid live on TV.

We had a circus act when we needed serious Government: is it not the case that when the country needed leadership most the Prime Minister was missing in action? Thousands have paid the ultimate price for his failure; when will the Prime Minister finally accept responsibility for the failures of his Government?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said repeatedly in this House, I take full responsibility for everything that the Government did and will continue to do so, and one of the reasons why we have set up an independent public inquiry is that I believe the people of this country deserve to have daylight shone on all the issues the right hon. Gentleman raised. I must say that I do not recognise the events that he describes, but I do think that we acted throughout with the intention of saving life, of protecting the NHS and of taking the country through the worst pandemic for 100 years, and I think it is also true that we are in a much more fortunate position now thanks to the efforts of the British people and the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe, and I am grateful for that as well.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

I spent Monday morning at the Fitz country house in Cockermouth with an alpaca called Boris. Cumbria sees significant numbers of tourists in any normal year, but Cumbria is not just lakes: we have some real gems in my constituency of Workington outside the national park. With a real opportunity for the UK hospitality industry this year as people choose to holiday here, will my right hon. Friend consider taking a short break in my constituency, where I might facilitate an introduction to Boris?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and would love to come and meet the alpaca called Boris, but, more importantly, we want to support tourism in his constituency, which is why we have so far provided over £25 billion of support, including £1.5 million to support projects such as the Carnegie Theatre Trust—and since this week is English Tourism Week I encourage everyone to make the most of the tourism on their doorstep.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]]

The EU settlement scheme closes on 30 June. While the Home Office has finally published guidance on late applications the Government are failing to provide clarity. What will happen to those who miss the deadline and then fall under the remit of illegal working legislation? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that EU citizens or non-EU family members who miss the deadline will not face potential criminal liability if they continue to go into work?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure the law will be extremely merciful to anybody who finds themselves in a difficult position, but I would just remind the hon. Gentleman that so far 5.4 million EU nationals have applied successfully for the EU settlement scheme, which as far as I remember is about 2 million more EU nationals than we thought we were in the country in the first place.

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in praising Wrexham and Denbighshire councils for the dynamic proposals they are putting forward in their joint bid for the levelling up fund in Clwyd South, including regeneration of the Trevor Basin, improvements for Chirk and Llangollen, and investment in Corwen station and the surrounding area?

[The Prime Minister]

May I tell my hon. Friend what a joy it is to hear him campaigning for Chirk, Corwen and Llangollen after I tramped around those beautiful places entirely fruitlessly many, many years ago in search of the Conservative vote? Thank you for what you have done. Thank you for continuing to champion those wonderful and beautiful spots.

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

When any Member of this House is suspended for 10 days or more because of a Standards Committee report, constituents can then recall that Member. When the Independent Expert Panel suspends a Member, that cannot happen. The Prime Minister was talking a moment ago about closing loopholes in legislation. Will he introduce emergency legislation to close this particular loophole? Does he agree that it would be completely dishonourable for any Member to exploit that loophole, and that they should instead do the decent thing and resign?

[The Prime Minister]

I take that point very seriously. I will study the implications of what the hon. Gentleman says. If the he is referring to a Conservative Member who has recently had the Whip taken away, he can take it that that Member has already had condign punishment.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Last Thursday at about 1 o’clock in the morning three young people popped out to Maccy D’s, as you do, and noticed a Leyland shop massively on fire. Did they drive past? No. They rang the fire brigade. They stopped. They recruited a passer-by. They climbed over fences and walls to raise the alarm for the residents living in the flats above. During the pandemic, community spirit has been really important to all of us keeping going. Does the Prime Minister share my admiration for Kim, Zach, Shania and Robin, and will he join me in thanking them for showing British community spirit and true Lancashire grit?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for singling out this intrepid act of quick-thinking and selflessness. I pay tribute to Kim, Zach, Shania and Robin, and I hope they got their Maccy D’s.

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

There are over 4.3 million children—and rising—growing up in poverty, including some 18,000 in Harrow. Will the Prime Minister agree to put right the error of a previous Prime Minister, and commit to publish a strategy to tackle child poverty and ensure that no child is left behind?

[The Prime Minister]

It is vital that we tackle child poverty, and that is why we are levelling up across the country with the biggest programme of investment for a generation, if not more. We are also seeing fewer households now with children in poverty than 10 years ago, but I perfectly accept that there is more to be done.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I very much welcome the fact that the Government are investing heavily in upgrading rail networks across the country, including opening lines that have previously been closed. As a Conservative Government, we have a particular responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure value for money. The business case for East West Rail in my constituency is largely based on commuting, but the pandemic means we are in the middle of a workplace revolution. If in future people work from home on average two days a week, that will mean a 40% reduction in commuting. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commit to doing a review of East West Rail’s business case to ensure it remains value for money and to take into account the long-term impact of the pandemic?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a great campaigner for Cambridgeshire and the rights of the people of Cambridgeshire. However, my strong feeling is that it would be a mistake now to go slow on investment in infrastructure purely on the basis that we think people will start working from home. My long experience of this is that people need to travel and they will travel. The commuter bustle will come back, and it needs to come back.

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

A global minimum rate for corporate tax would help to tackle tax avoidance by large multinational corporations and online giants. It would stop them undercutting British businesses who pay their fair share, and it would make a transformational difference to high streets and town centres at the heart of communities across the UK. Why is the Prime Minister the only G7 leader not to support this proposal? Why is he on the side of tax avoiders, instead of British businesses and communities?

[The Prime Minister]

It was only a few months ago that the Labour Front Benchers opposed the corporation tax increases we put in. They are now opposed to the Government’s ability to cut corporation tax. Which side are they on? They have got to make their minds up.

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

  Like me, the Prime Minister represents a constituency in London’s commuter land, so he will be well aware of the small businesses—sole traders, many of them—who operate the coffee stores, newsagents and so on at our railway stations. Their incomes have been absolutely decimated during the pandemic, but they are finding, like my constituent Sanjay Sharma at Chislehurst station, that when they seek to get a reduced level of rent to reflect their reduced turnover, the train operating companies claim that the funding agreement put in place with the Department for Transport does not give them the discretion to do so. The Department appears to say differently, and they have been going around in circles for months trying to get an answer. Will the Prime Minister use the authority of his office, please, to bang heads together and get a solution for them, because if they go broke and we have empty units, that is no income for anybody?

[The Prime Minister]

We introduced a policy to provide rent relief for station businesses in March last year. All train operators, including Southeastern in my hon. Friend’s constituency, are able to offer business support to their stations. I understand the point he makes about the discrepancy of views. Can I undertake to arrange a meeting with him and the relevant Minister to take it forward?

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

I have asked the Prime Minister a series of questions about charities. In November, he promised support. By March he had turned his back, but this month, he broke that promise, giving them nothing this winter. His words and deeds are as unfaithful as his principles and beliefs. He has neither the commitment to honour his word, the capacity to care, nor the compassion to act. Does the Prime Minister really believe that charity is all about supporting him and his lifestyle or recognise that charities now £10 billion in debt and struggling to survive need Government support to help people in real need?

[The Prime Minister]

I think charities perform an amazing and invaluable role in our society and in our lives, and we need them. That is why we have supported charity shops throughout the lockdown with restart grants—the road map means that those shops are now able to open again—but, in addition, we had a £750 million targeted package of support for charities, helping more than 14,000 organisations across the country, including funding for hospices, homelessness charities, shelters for victims of domestic abuse and many others.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

The fishing industry in East Anglia has had a hard time of it in recent years. However, with Brexit done, albeit in a way that left many disappointed, there is now an opportunity to turn the corner. The REAF—renaissance of East Anglian fisheries—strategy sets out an exciting and ambitious programme for the future. Is the Prime Minister able to say how the Government will work with fishing communities, such as that in Lowestoft, to revive the industry in East Anglia?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to champion the fisheries industry in East Anglia. I like his REAF plan. I think it has lots of interesting ideas, which we will take forward as part of our £100 million package to support the fishing industry and get ready to take advantage of those opportunities that are coming very swiftly down the track towards us.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

NHS and social care staff in Wales are due to receive a £500 bonus in recognition of their hard work during the pandemic, but staff on universal credit stand to lose out due to the way in which the award is recognised in the regulations as earned income, so instead of receiving a thank you bonus at the end of the month, many NHS and social care staff will be punished with a deduction of up to 63% from their universal credit. Will the Prime Minister look to amend regulation 55 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 to create an exemption to ensure that all NHS and social care staff in Wales benefit fully from this well-deserved bonus?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Of course, I want to repeat my gratitude to the nurses of this country and the NHS and social care staff who have done incredible work throughout this pandemic. He makes a particular point about the tapering in universal credit, and I will make sure that he has a meeting with the relevant Minister, who will set out the detail on the issue he has raised.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) [V]]

On behalf of my constituent Seema Misra and other wrongly convicted sub-postmasters, I am grateful that the vital inquiry of Sir Wyn Williams into that scandal has now been given more teeth. However, there is widespread concern, shared by Post Office CEO Nick Read, that the compensation received by the sub-postmasters who were party to the civil litigation at the High Court was simply not fair. I urge the Prime Minister to ensure that those civil litigant sub-postmasters will be included in the anticipated Government compensation scheme.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue—a tragic case of injustice. I have met some of the postmasters and sub-postmasters who have been affected by that miscarriage of justice. As he knows, the Government were not party to the initial litigation, nor the settlement that was agreed, but we are determined to ensure that postmasters and sub-postmasters are fairly compensated for what happened.

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

Brexit and Scottish independence are, indeed, very different, but referendums are much the same. In 2016, without interference, the EU respected the UK in the Brexit referendum process. Unfortunately, the last Scottish referendum did not see Scotland get the same respect. London politicians promised Scotland a place in the European Union. They won that referendum, very clearly, on broken promises. In the autumn, when the Scots Government have dealt with the health effects of the pandemic, the economic part of it will require independence, as Norway and Ireland prove. So, Prime Minister, will Scotland be shown the same respect in the UK as the UK got in the EU, and this time can our democracy not be interfered with, and our referendum certainly not blocked?

[The Prime Minister]

We respected the referendum result of 2014, which was a very substantial majority in favour of remaining in the UK, keeping our wonderful country together, not breaking it up. That was what the people of Scotland rightly voted for, and they did so in the belief that it was a once-in-a-generation event.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

For almost 500 years the Royal Navy has protected our country from foes and protected the freedom of our friends around the world. The pride of our navy, HMS Queen Elizabeth, sailed this week with her strike group. Within her she carries the British values of freedom, justice and democracy, so can my right hon. Friend tell me, as she makes her way from the Mediterranean to the South China Sea, what his plans are for the future of her white ensign?

[The Prime Minister]

It was fantastic to be on board the HMS Queen Elizabeth, which is a vessel longer than the Palace of Westminster, and forms a more eloquent statement, in many ways, than many of the speeches and interventions that we have heard this afternoon, about Britain’s role in the world and our determination to expand shipbuilding and expand our naval presence, which is good not only for the UK and for the world, but good for jobs and growth around the country.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Covid has triggered the first global rise in extreme poverty this century, but at the G7 the Prime Minister could act. He can ask leaders to reallocate the International Monetary Fund’s £1 trillion-worth of special drawing rights and restock the World Bank’s £83 billion-worth of International Development Association funds. This is a multi-billion pound package of support for the world’s poorest. Will the Prime Minister today commit to leading that argument at the G7, so that a pandemic of disease does not now become a pandemic of poverty?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. It is great to see him in his place—it is always great to see him in this place. Actually, I have had conversations on that very matter already with Kristalina Georgiera.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

One of the many awful things about the past year has been the inability to visit family and friends in hospital. It has caused immense anguish for many of my constituents. We are seeing some progress locally and I hope that, with the brilliant roll-out of the vaccine, we will see more, but can the Prime Minister inform the House when normal visiting hours will resume for all hospitals nationwide?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend speaks for many millions of people who have wanted to visit loved ones and I know the anguish that they have felt. We need to balance those wholly legitimate feelings with the need to manage the risk of infection, as I know my hon. Friend understands very well. We will update the guidance as soon as it is possible to do so.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Tala, 13, Rula, just five years old, her big sister Yara, aged nine: three Palestinian children killed in an Israeli air- strike. The Israeli military murdered 63 other children and 245 Palestinians in its recent assault on Gaza. The call for Palestinian freedom has never been louder, but this Conservative Government are complicit in its denial. They have approved more than £400 million in arms to Israel since 2015, so can the Prime Minister look me in the eye and tell me that British-made weapons or components were not used in the war crimes that killed these three children and hundreds of other Palestinians? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind hon. Members that we should not use props.

[The Prime Minister]

I think that the whole House understands that nobody wants to see any more of the appalling conflict in Israel and Gaza, and that we are all glad that there is now a ceasefire and a de-escalation. As for the position of the British Government, it is probably common ground among most Members that we want a two-state solution. The UK Government have campaigned for that for many years and it continues to be our position.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

12:36

Sitting suspended.

Petition

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Environment Bill

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 21

Habitats Regulations: power to amend general duties

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/ 1012) (the “Habitats Regulations”), as they apply in relation to England, for the purposes in subsection (2).

(2) The purposes are——

(a) to require persons within regulation 9(1) of the Habitats Regulations to exercise functions to which that regulation applies—

(i) to comply with requirements imposed by regulations under this section, or

(ii) to further objectives specified in regulations under this section, instead of exercising them to secure compliance with the requirements of the Directives;

(b) to require persons within regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations, when exercising functions to which that regulation applies, to have regard to matters specified by regulations under this section instead of the requirements of the Directives.

(3) The regulations may impose requirements, or specify objectives or matters, relating to—

(a) targets in respect of biodiversity set by regulations under section1;

(b) improvements to the natural environment which relate to biodiversity and are set out in an environmental improvement plan.

(4) The regulations may impose any other requirements, or specify any other objectives or matters, relating to the conservation or enhancement of biodiversity that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) Regulations under this section may also, in connection with provision made for the purposes in subsection (2), amend other provisions of the Habitats Regulations, as they apply in relation to England, which refer to requirements, objectives or provisions of the Directives.

(6) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the particular importance of furthering the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.

(7) The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section only if satisfied that the regulations do not reduce the level of environmental protection provided by the Habitats Regulations.

(8) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (7).

(9) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(10) Regulations under this section may not come into force before 1 February 2023.

(11) In this section—

“the Directives” has the same meaning as in the Habitats Regulations (see regulation 3(1));

“England” includes the territorial sea adjacent to England, which for this purpose does not include—

(a) any part of the territorial sea adjacent to Wales for the general or residual purposes of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (see section 158 of that Act), or

(b) any part of the territorial sea adjacent to Scotland for the general or residual purposes of the Scotland Act 1998 (see section 126 of that Act);

“environmental improvement plan” has the same meaning as in Part 1.

(12) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause confers powers to amend the Habitats Regulations to require public authorities to comply with requirements or objectives, or have regard to matters, specified in regulations (for example requirements, objectives or matters relating to biodiversity targets under clause 1 or biodiversity aspects of the environmental improvement plan).—(Rebecca Pow.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

12:40

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (a), in subsection 2(a)(ii), leave out “instead of” and insert “in addition to”.

Amendment (b), in subsection 2(a)(b), leave out “instead of” and insert “in addition to”.

Government new clause 22—Habitats Regulations: power to amend Part 6.

New clause 2—Assessment of Plans—

‘(1) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017/1012 are amended as follows.

(2) In Regulation 63 (Assessment of implications for European sites and European offshore marine sites) the following are amended—

(a) in paragraph (1) for “must” substitute “may”;

(b) in paragraph (3) for “must” substitute “may”;

(c) in paragraph (4) for “must” substitute “may”;

(d) omit paragraph (5) and insert “In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to regulation 64, the competent authority may take the assessment into account in deciding whether it will agree to the plan or project”; and

(e) in paragraph (6) for “must” substitute “may”.”

New clause 4—Protected species: Hedgehog—

‘(1) The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) At the end of Schedule 5 (Animals which are protected) insert—

[Rebecca Pow]

What a pleasure it is to be back to continue our consideration of this vital legislation, which will set us on a sustainable trajectory for the future. I know that so many colleagues have been looking forward to today with great anticipation, as indeed have I.

Although the journey of this Bill may have seemed a little lengthy, I assure the House that we have not been resting on our laurels. During this time, there has been a huge amount of constructive, dedicated work, and I will outline some of it: a draft environmental principles policy statement, which will guide the Government in applying environmental principles, was published for consultation on 10 March; and on 24 March we launched consultations on the deposit return scheme and the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging, and these are two key initiatives in the resource and waste measures of the Bill.

We are working at pace to ensure that the Office for Environmental Protection will be operationally ready to stand up as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. We have also announced that new measures to reduce the harm from storm overflows on our precious aquatic environment will be added in the other place.

At this point, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his dedicated work on this issue. It has been a tremendous joint effort.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Will the Minister also pay tribute to Surfers Against Sewage, which has done a marvellous job of lobbying and achieving a great outcome?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am pleased the hon. Lady made that intervention, because of course I would like to pay tribute to Surfers Against Sewage, which has played a key role in all this for such a long time. Coming from the south-west, as I do, I very much know about the good work done by Surfers Against Sewage.

Today we are debating the nature parts of the Bill, which provide a framework of measures to support nature’s recovery in line with the ambition set out in our 25-year environment plan.

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

The Minister will know that England lags significantly behind the other countries of the UK on tree planting to help tackle climate change. She will also be aware that there is no ring-fenced component to the nature for climate fund for innovative, green-minded local authorities, such as my own in Harrow, to put in bids so that we, too, can play our part in increasing tree coverage.

[Rebecca Pow]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, or I hope he knows, we launched our tree action plan just last week. It sets out the raft of measures we will use to enable us to plant our commitments and target on tree planting, which is 30,000 hectares by the end of this Parliament. There are measures in the action plan, and we have allocated £500 million from the nature for climate fund, so I would say there is a huge commitment to tree planting in this country.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am going to continue.

The Bill also contains a coherent package of new duties, tools and support to drive improvement for nature: a 10% biodiversity net gain requirement on new development; a strengthened duty on all public authorities to conserve and enhance biodiversity—they will be able to do a lot of the tree planting mentioned by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas); local nature recovery strategies, which will form the building blocks for a much wider national nature recovery network; species conservation strategies and protected sites strategies to improve conservation outcomes for habitats and species; targeted measures to protect existing trees and plant new ones—back to trees again; and due diligence requirements to prohibit larger UK companies from including forest risk commodities in their supply chains.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I always give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is always very kind, which I appreciate very much. Amendment 41 would give enforcement powers to councils and local bodies with responsibility for planning to ensure that no illegal tree felling is allowed. Do the Government intend to support that amendment? I believe that the Minister and I both love trees and want to see plenty of them. Will that happen?

[Rebecca Pow]

If the hon. Gentleman stays in the Chamber, he will hear what I say about trees—

[Mr Speaker]

He doesn’t want to leave.

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course he doesn’t, Mr Speaker, and he won’t be able to now. I hope he will be pleased by what he hears about what we are doing to protect trees.

Finally in this toolbox of measures to improve nature, we have conservation covenants to protect natural features of the land for future generations. Just last week, we announced a raft of significant measures to further deliver for the environment, and I am absolutely delighted to say that we have committed to an historic new, legally binding target on species abundance for 2030, which aims to halt the decline of nature in England. We will table an amendment on that in the other place and we will set a final target in statute following the agreement of global targets at the UN conference on biodiversity in Kunming, in China, in autumn 2021.

It is essential that we seize this opportunity to set our ambitions high and take action to deliver them. I think it is clear in the Bill that we are doing that. That is why, in addition, I am pleased to propose two Government new clauses today—new clauses 21 and 22, which will not only help us halt the decline in species but drive recovery. New clause 21 provides for a power to refocus the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to ensure that our legislation adequately supports our ambitions for nature, including our new, world-leading 2030 target to halt the decline of species. New clause 22 will allow us to amend part 6 of the 2017 regulations to improve the habitats regulatory assessment process. Where the evidence suggests that amending the regulations can improve the natural environment, make processes clearer and provide more legal certainty, to help improve the condition of our sites, we will have the means to do so swiftly.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Theresa Villiers]

The Minister is very kind in giving way. Will she assure the House that the Government’s determination to restore peatlands will be an important part of meeting their new 2030 commitment on species conservation?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to mention our peat action plan, which was launched just last week. Restoring our peatlands is a crucial part of improving nature. It is essential that we get the 30,000 hectares that we have pledged to restore restored. We have the funding and measures behind it to enable us to do that.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who I do not see in her place in the Chamber—

[Mr Speaker]

She is online.

[Rebecca Pow]

Okay—I will look up at the video screens. The hon. Lady will say that we need to lock in the protections of the habitats and wild birds directive as they are now, but if we are to deliver on our ambitious new target and reverse the downward trend of recent decades, we need to change our approach, and we need to change it now.

Now that we have the leading framework and targets set out in the Bill, we need to take responsibility for delivering the change needed to achieve our world-leading environmental ambitions. We need to create space for the creative public policy thinking that can help us to deliver those results. To that end, we have designed the new Government amendment with the specific aim of conserving and enhancing biodiversity. Under new clause 21(10), the power to amend regulation 9 can come into force only from 1 February 2023, once we have set the biodiversity targets and conducted the first review of the environmental improvement plan, as provided for in part 1 of the Bill. We have also been explicit that powers can be used only if they do not reduce the existing level of environmental protection. We will closely consult conservation groups, the OEP and others.

The clause will also require us to explain to this House how the use of the power would maintain the level of environmental protections provided by the Habitats and Species Regulations before any regulatory changes are made, and of course the House will have the opportunity to vote on any reforms. In addition, my colleague Lord Benyon will also chair a small working group, comprising myself, Tony Juniper, the chair of Natural England, and Christopher Katkowski, QC, which will gather information on how we might utilise the powers enabled through our Government amendments. We will have our first meeting before the summer recess. The group will consider the technical detail and will gather evidence from experts and stakeholders. The Green Paper will then offer a further opportunity for stakeholders to feed back on the initial proposals for reform. We will consult the new OEP on any proposals we develop before any regulatory changes are made.

On habitats protection, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), whom I am so pleased to see in his place, is right to raise the important issue of the protection of species such as the hedgehog. We all love a hedgehog, don’t we? I have released lots of rescued hedgehogs into my garden. The existing legislation focuses on deliberate harm against species, which, on its own, does not properly address the real challenges faced by species whose numbers are declining, such as the hedgehog. It is a priority for us to provide the legislative protections and policy interventions needed for our wildlife, including for declining species such as the hedgehog, and to deliver our 2030 target on biodiversity. He will therefore be pleased to learn that I have instructed my Department, as part of our Green Paper, to begin a review of this legislation, with a view to enhancing and modernising it. We intend to publish and seek views on our conclusions in the Green Paper later this year, and I give him an absolute commitment that this work will encompass the issues that he has raised and that I know he will be speaking about today, and that the final outcomes will ensure that we provide the kind of support that is desperately needed to reverse the decline in hedgehog numbers. I thank him in advance for championing this cause, because the hedgehog needs a champion.

Along with climate change, biodiversity loss is the defining challenge of our generation. Ensuring our protected sites can be restored to good condition, functioning properly as reservoirs for wildlife, and protecting our most vulnerable habitats and species is crucial to delivering on our environmental ambitions.

[Bob Seely]

I congratulate the Minister on seeking to improve that Bill, as that is excellent. Four amendments have been tabled—two by me, one from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and one from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller)—that address specifically tree preservation orders, more protections and closing loopholes for sites of special scientific interest. Will the Government listen closely to those amendments? If they think they are worthy of support, as I think they are, will they please incorporate them or ensure that they are incorporated in the other place?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I know that there are a lot of strong advocates for trees. We have some very strong measures in the Bill, as I hope he will already know—we have worked very hard on our tree protections. We believe that they, in conjunction with our tree action plan, mean that we have very strong measures for trees, but, obviously, we are always open to hear what colleagues have to say, because we have to look after and indeed increase our tree planting.

As I was saying, our ambition goes much wider than just existing protected sites; we want to see a much more abundant nature-rich Britain, with further action to bend the curve on species loss in this country. These powers to redesign our conservation regulations with these ambitions in mind form part of our plan to restore and enhance nature in this country. It is a must do, and we will do it. I commend these amendments to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Before the shadow Secretary of State rises to speak, let me remind Members that the time limit on Back-Bench speeches is four minutes, as we have a lot of interest in this important Bill.

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

Two years ago this month, it was Parliament that declared a climate and an ecological emergency. We were the first Parliament in the world to do so in what was a truly landmark moment in the fight against the climate and ecological crisis. I was proud to work on that declaration and proud that it was a Labour motion. We need more landmark moments such as that if we are to tackle the climate and ecological emergency in a meaningful way. We were promised that the Environment Bill would be a landmark Bill.

“Landmark” is what the Government kept saying, seemingly until England’s rolling hills were littered with press releases as far as the eye could see, but, sadly, it is not a landmark Bill.

Let us be clear about what the climate crisis means. If we do not take the bold action now that is required, the freak weather, the destruction of homes, job losses, food shortages, habitat loss and species extinction will only get worse. Since Parliament declared that climate emergency, the Department for Food and Rural Affairs has issued 508 press releases about the environment. The group plural for a set of press releases evades me. It could be a discombobulation, a tedium, or a wafer. None the less, the Government seem to have been more focused on the spin than the substance of the matter. The press releases, ambitions, targets and soundbites are no substitute for the bold action that we need on the climate.

[Catherine West]

What does my hon. Friend make of the World Wildlife Fund’s statement that the Bill does not go far enough to protect the world’s forests and oceans? Specifically, I know that there is interest across the House in what is happening in neighbourhoods and suburbs. In my own constituency of Muswell Hill, Highgate and Stroud Green, there is a lot of concern about trees coming down unnecessarily. How can we make that vision a reality?

[Luke Pollard]

Both my hon. Friend and the WWF are right that we need to see bolder action on forests and the oceans. It is a shocking indictment of this Bill that there is barely a mention of the oceans, which is a really important part of our environment.

Ministers must act in a quicker and more decisive way on the environment than we have seen to date. I hoped that the delay in the Bill would have given Ministers that time to be bolder, but I am afraid that they have not used their time as wisely as I would have liked. I welcome the steps forward that the Minister has announced, but they are not enough. The pace and urgency seem to be absent. Our rivers are polluted. There is not a single river in England safe to swim in. More species face extinction at home and abroad; more bees are dying from bee-killing pesticides, the use of which is legitimised by this Government; more plastics are entering our oceans; and dangerous particulates are entering the lungs of some of our most vulnerable. Where is the vision? Where is the landmark boldness that we were promised? Where is the rock-the-boat carbon cutting innovation? Where is the determination to push harder and harder to clean our air, protect our species, plant more trees and get us back on a course for nature recovery? Where is the World Health Organisation’s air quality targets in the Bill? Where is the boldness on ocean protection? We need that bold action not only to cut carbon, but to step up and protect our natural environment as well. If we have this approach that we can either solve a carbon crisis or an ecological crisis, we will solve neither. We need to solve both of them together, or neither of them at all.

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

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I support the amendments, which are also in my name. Many constituents have written to me about these issues. Does he agree that there is a stark contrast here with the approach shown by the Welsh Labour Government? Let us take their tree-planting programme as an example. Since 2008, the Plant! scheme has planted a tree for every child born or adopted in Wales and also in Uganda, supporting forestation globally. The Welsh Government have also introduced a new moratorium on incineration, which affects my constituency and that of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), when it comes to that crucial issue of air quality

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. What the Welsh Labour Government have shown is that we can be bold and decisive and that we can take people with us on that journey. The “people first” approach in Wales is something that could be replicated in an English approach, but sadly, England has fallen further and further behind other nations in the United Kingdom. That is why I want the Minister to do more to preserve our precious habitats and biodiversity. If a car is speeding off a cliff, it is not enough simply to slow it down; we have to bring it to a stop and turn things around, and that is why Labour has tabled several amendments to try to inject some of the boldness that we need into the Bill. Let me turn to those amendments now.

13:01

The public want to see us plant more trees, but the thing about planting more trees is that more trees are not enough. We need to be bolder and bolder in the numbers we plant and the species we plant to ensure that we have a good mix of fruit trees, deciduous trees and other varieties of trees creating a rich biodiversity of habitats for our wonderful wildlife. The Committee on Climate Change, the independent body set up to advise the Government, has been clear that we need to raise our current 13% forest cover to 17% by 2050 if we are to have any chance of meeting our climate goals. That may need to increase further if the Government continue to miss other targets along the way. But the Government are missing their tree planting targets by 40 years. If we continue at the current paltry rate of tree planting, the Government’s own 2050 targets will not be met until 2091. I will be 111 years old in 2091. I would like to live that long, but I simply do not think the planet can wait for us to hit that low level of ambition that the Government have on this. More tree planting plans, more targets, more press releases and more paper printed out with those press releases will not plant the trees we need. I want the Minister to be bolder on this, and that is why we have tabled new clause 25, which would see the Government at least hit the Committee on Climate Change’s target, but I want them to go further.

Our Amendment 22 is another attempt to give the Bill some ambition on net gain. The Government have laid out some plans to regain and restore some habitats, and that is welcome, but they have stopped short of safeguarding this for the long term. Amendment 22 would require habitats secured under biodiversity gain to be maintained in perpetuity, rather than just for the 30 years envisaged by the Bill. That figure of 30 years matters. Can the Minister explain what will happen after the 30th year? What will happen in the 31st year? Will those protections fall away? Why was 30 years chosen and not a greater number? Habitats for wildlife can take decades or even longer to be become established, but they take minutes to be destroyed by a bulldozer. Protections matter.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government’s proposals on planning reform will actually make the proposals in the Environment Bill on net gain and protecting habitats far more difficult, in that they are a developers’ charter and the wishes of local people are likely to be overridden?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why Labour is arguing for a comprehensive, joined-up approach from Ministers, in which DEFRA’s policies align with those of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and with Treasury funding. They do not do so at the moment; we have a developers’ charter that does not match the protections that the Minister is talking about. I believe the Minister when she says she is passionate about this, but I just do not see that read-across in Government policy. The peripheralisation of DEFRA in the Government debate is not helping to protect our habitats when other Ministers are able to get away with habitat-destroying policies and seemingly all we have is a Minister patting himself on the back for this Bill. That is not enough, and I am glad my hon. Friend raised that example.

I am worried that the Government’s approach to species conservation is seemingly ad hoc and represents an unambitious approach that seems to have overtaken DEFRA. Labour’s amendment 46 demands a strategic approach to species conservation through protecting, restoring and creating habitats over a wider area to meet the needs of the individual species that are being protected. It acknowledges the vital role that species conservation can play in restoring biodiversity and enabling nature’s recovery. Indeed, it builds on Labour’s amendment to the Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) at the last stage that would see a nature recovery by 2030. I welcome the steps forward on that but I would like to see more detail, because at the moment it seems like a good press release, but without enough action to ensure that the delivery is ensured.

Mr Speaker, you will know that I am a big fan of bees. I should declare an interest because my family keep bees on their farm in Cornwall. Since 1900, the UK has lost 13 of its 35 native species of bee. Bees are essential to our future on the planet, to pollinating crops and to the rich tapestry of biodiversity that depends on them. Bee health is non-negotiable; we must do all we can to protect our precious pollinators. On the first day on Report, the Conservatives voted down Labour’s amendment that would have restored the ban on bee-killing pesticides; on day 2 on Report—today—will the Government back or defeat Labour’s amendment 46 on species conservation? This really matters because bees really matter, and I think the concern is shared across party lines. The steps that the Minister has taken to support sugar beet farmers, especially in the east of England, is welcome. I want to support sugar beet farmers as well—I want to support British agriculture, which is especially needed given the risk of an Australian trade deal—but lifting the ban on bee-killing pesticides is not the answer. It will not help us in the long term.

Like many campaigners and stakeholders, we on the Opposition Benches are concerned that the overt focus on development in the explanatory narrative on clause 108 supplied by the Government suggests that it could fall into a worrying category. Labour’s amendment 46 seeks to correct that by putting nature-recovery objectives, underpinned by evidence, into the heart of the strategies and ensuring that each one abides by the mitigation hierarchy, starting with trying to conserve existing habitat and then moving to habitat compensation only when all other avenues have been exhausted. That will ensure that each strategy serves to recover a species, rather than greenlighting the destruction of existing habitats that are important to that species, in return for inadequate compensation elsewhere. Our amendment is common sense, it would strengthen the provisions in the name of the Secretary of State and, if passed, will show that this House cares about getting the most out of the Bill. I hope the Minister will give additional attention to those provisions when the Bill enters the other place.

On the other amendments that have been tabled on the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations and Government new clauses 21 and 22, I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—she and I share an awful lot in common on this matter—because on the face of it we are minded to agree that we cannot rely on the Government not to dilute the environmental protections currently in the nature directives. I heard what the Minister had to say and think her heart is in the right place, but I want to see things put in law. She may not be a Minister forever and we need to make sure that whoever follows her will have the same zeal and encouragement. I am afraid that unless it is on the face of the Bill, there is a risk that that might not happen.

We support amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), on deforestation, the extension of due diligence requirements to the finance sector and the strengthening of protection for local communities and indigenous peoples. That is a good example of a Select Committee Chair proposing something meaningful and important that might not always get the headlines. He is playing an important role and we encourage power to his elbow.

In conclusion, the Bill has been stuck for too long. I had hoped that the delay in bringing the Bill forward caused by the Government would have altered the Government’s pedestrian approach and resulted in bolder action, with more amendments to the Bill to take on the concerns of non-governmental organisations, stakeholders and, indeed, the constituents we all represent. But on air quality, it fails to put WHO targets into law. It fails to require enough trees or seagrass to be planted. It fails to look at our marine environment in a meaningful way. On targets, it is weak, and the difficult decisions required to hit net zero seem to be parked for future dates. It is absent on ocean protection, which is surely a key part of our environment as an island nation.

Labour’s amendments would strengthen the Bill. In all sincerity, I encourage the Minister to look closely at them, because they are good amendments. But that is precisely why I fear that the Government will Whip their MPs to vote against them. I do not think that Ministers want a strong, landmark Bill; I think they want a weak Bill that allows them the freedom to park difficult decisions, delay urgent action and act in their own best interests rather than the planet’s. This Bill is enough to look busy—to do something—but not enough to make meaningful change. It is in that grey area that a real danger lies: enough to convince the public that something is being done without fundamentally changing the outcomes at the end of it—to lull people into a false sense of security that change is happening and does not require the difficult decisions that we all in our hearts know are coming.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as always. I do not think it is fair to say that it is a weak Bill. May I probe the Opposition, as we are on Report, on the whole issue of biodiversity as a condition of planning permission? There are amendments on the amendment paper in that respect today; where do the Opposition stand on planning permission and biodiversity as a precondition thereof?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention; I know he always listens carefully to my speeches on this subject, and his question is a good one. We are facing a bit of a planning crisis. I am concerned that the developers’ charter that has been set out by the Government regarding planning on one side of Government practice does not fit neatly with what is being proposed in this Bill, on this side of Government practice.

If we are to have the expansion in a free-for-all for development that is being proposed by one Government Department, it is hard to see how that fits with the biodiversity protections on another side of Government. I would like them to gel together, because I want developers to provide the more affordable homes, the zero-carbon homes and the low-carbon homes that we need in all our constituencies. To do that, we need to send a clear message to them about how biodiversity is to be built into the planning system. Where, for instance, is the requirement for swift bricks to be built into new developments—building nature into them? Where is the requirements to have hedgehog holes in some of the fences, as we have seen from some developers?

There are an awful lot of good interventions on biodiversity and planning that create not unnecessary red tape or cost, but an environment where we can build nature into our new planning system. At the moment, I am concerned that those two things do not match together, which is why we want to see biodiversity much more integrated into the planning system. If I am honest, I think Government Members also want that to happen, which is why the planning reforms proposed in the Queen’s Speech do not fit with this Bill and why there is such concern.

[Bob Seely]

These are good individual ideas, but the problem is actually a much wider one. If we do not have a recycling culture in housing and planning, we are just going to use lots of greenfield sites. Doing so would damage not only our environment, but our communities; we would be doing social damage by leaving brownfield sites undeveloped. We need to start taxing greenfield sites and doing radical stuff, so that we get joined-up Government and use that money massively to clear the way for developing brownfield sites. That is what we need to be doing—not just putting in nice little bee bricks, as important as they are.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am a big fan of bee bricks as well as swift bricks. I fear that his intervention was aimed more at the Government than at me. I hope that the Minister will be listening carefully to her own Back Benchers, because, whether she agrees with the words of the Opposition or not, we need a bolder Environment Bill. We need it to be better joined up across Government because we are not there yet.

DEFRA was at the heart of Government when the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) was in charge, but it has lost its way. It has lost its va va voom. It is now dominated by a bland and dreary managerialism. Where is the energy and drive needed to tackle the climate crisis? The Department has a lot of decent junior Ministers—one of them is opposite me now—but I think it has lost its way. This Bill is okay. It is passable. It is a bit “meh”. But it is not landmark. Indeed, it is deliberately not a landmark Bill.

I say to the Minister: look carefully at Labour’s amendments and please let us work together to get this Bill back on track. I agree with her on the need for bold action; I just do not think that this Bill delivers it. If we are properly to address the climate and ecological crisis, we need more, bolder and decisive action than I am afraid this Bill includes.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind Members that the speaking limit in effect for Back Benchers is four minutes. The countdown clock will be visible on the screen of hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. For hon. Members participating physically in the Chamber, the usual clock in the Chamber will now operate. I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Neil Parish.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate.

I welcome the return of the Environment Bill and commend Ministers on bringing it back so quickly after the Queen’s Speech. Let me start by welcoming the recent publication of England trees action plan, which sets out ambitious targets for tree planting. I was pleased to see that it also includes plans to deliver what I have previously described as smart tree planting. What I mean by smart tree planting is not simply planting large numbers of trees, but planting the right trees in the right areas so that they can help to mitigate soil erosion and form natural flood defences. I welcome the fact that new woodlands are to be planted that will enhance biodiversity and have recreational benefits, but I emphasise that trees are also a living crop; we want to see them grow and mature, and we will use them for building our houses and will capture the carbon. I therefore want to see the right varieties planted to form the timber of our future buildings.

While we are rightly going to great lengths to deliver sustainable forestry policy in England, we must not miss the opportunity to send equally ambitious targets to protect forests overseas, many of which are very sadly facing an unprecedented threat. In 2020 alone, some 11,000 sq km of the Amazon were lost to deforestation—the most in 12 years. That is an area nearly twice the size of Devon lost in one year. Large-scale commercial agriculture accounts for a large proportion of that. We cannot allow this to go on.

[Steve Brine]

I am very happy to put my name to amendments 26 and 27, in particular amendment 27, on financial services. Many of our constituents will invest with and use UK financial institutions, banks and pension funds, and they will have very little sight of the investments that they make around the world that could assist deforestation of the Amazon. Is not the key point that we cannot just rely on transparency—that it is a duty of the House to act, and this legislation is a golden opportunity to do that?

13:15

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, especially in terms of pension funds. People do not always know which companies their pension funds are investing in and what those companies are investing in—are they investing in Malaysia or in large cattle ranches in Brazil, where deforestation may be taking place? We need to tighten up on this, and I very much welcome his intervention.

Not only are rainforests a carbon sink, but they hold 80% of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity. They help to maintain our delicate global ecosystem, so I am pleased that, as part of the Bill, companies that cause illegal deforestation will be held accountable. The requirement for large companies to undertake due diligence on their supply chains is an important step, but the Bill should go further in tackling the practice.

As Members will know, I have tabled two amendments to the Bill to ensure that the measures have the teeth to tackle the problem. First, amendment 26 proposes that we put into law protections for the rights of indigenous people, requiring that

“free, prior and informed consent has been obtained from affected indigenous peoples and local communities”

before big companies go in and develop land. That is important because, while the Government’s new provisions reference the need for companies to ensure that local laws are respected, they do not consider that the rights of indigenous communities are not always respected in law.

I have visited Brazil; I have seen the trucks going through the forest and the people in the back of them with sub-machine-guns. I can assure the Government that it is not easy for indigenous people to have rights in places where there is no real rule of law in parts. Indeed, 80% of indigenous lands do not yet have secure legal rights. In those places, local people are rightly defending their own land from aggressive development, but at great risk. In February 2019, I had the honour of meeting the chief of the indigenous population in the Amazon. He told me of the daily struggles that he and his people experience in protecting their homes from illegal land clearance. Research shows that more people than ever were killed in 2019 for defending their land. Over 200 were killed—an average of around four people a week. Not only are indigenous people being killed, but many are seeing the land on which their livelihoods depend being destroyed. Amendment 26 would not only save lives but would save livelihoods—something that I know the Government care greatly about. I ask them to look carefully at this issue.

The second measure that I would like the Government to implement to tighten up the Bill is amendment 27. I firmly believe that we must ensure that the legislation includes the financial sector, which is in many cases bank-rolling deforestation in places such as Brazil and Malaysia. If we do not include the financial sector in these measures, we are missing out one of the most integral parts of the supply chain and leaving a large loophole in the law.

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

Mr Speaker, you might recall that there used to be a TV game show called “Bullseye”, in which the legendary Jim Bowen consoled failed contestants with that cruellest of catchphrases, “Let’s have a look at what you could have won.” As we come to the end of the long process of this Environment Bill, a lot of folk might be thinking that it was Jim Bowen presenting it.

I will be as generous as I can and say that there were good intentions behind the Bill, or at least the stated intentions were good back when it appeared many, many moons ago. There was admirable ambition to enshrine environmental protections in law, to set proper targets and to establish the Office for Environmental Protection—high aims, except those rules would not apply to one of the most polluting and environmentally damaging parts of the state, the military. They also would not apply to anything that might be classed as national security or taxation or spending. Those are pretty big areas of government: if taxation and the allocation of resources are exempted, a massive part of governance will walk happily by without casting a glance in the direction of the environmental protection regulations.

Then of course in the Bill’s Committee stage the Government introduced amendments and new clauses that limited the power of the Office for Environmental Protection to take enforcement action, creating thresholds for reviews, moving the review from tribunal to court, limiting the OEP’s power to intervene in judicial reviews brought by others, and imposing even greater limitations on its own power to initiate judicial reviews. To top that off, Ministers took the power to be able to direct the OEP on what it should be enforcing. It has gone from a powerful and independent body to a mere arm of the Government before it is even born—a bit sad, really.

There are still things to be welcomed, however, the setting of a species recovery target being one. It should be a declaration of intent—a commitment to reversing some of the harm that has been done—but it needs clarifying and it needs political will behind it to get to any kind of a delivery phase. It also needs cash—plenty up front to get it started, as well as an ongoing commitment to keep funding the work.

We have seen what has happened to Natural England: how the funding cuts stripped that body of its ability to do its job; how its feet got cut away from under it; how a decade of austerity has rendered it unable to function properly. Budget cuts have led to pay cuts, cuts in grants, cuts in staff numbers and cuts in assessed programmes. That is a terrible way to treat staff—a horrendous betrayal of their loyalty and hard work—and I hope Ministers, and those hoping one day to replace them, think on that. Natural England’s Government funding was cut by two thirds between 2010 and last year. Staff numbers have gone down by a quarter since 2010 and those who remain have seen real-terms pay cuts. The ability of the agency to do its work is compromised, if not fatally damaged. Its recovery, if it can recover, would depend on substantial investment in cash and in political capital, but, given how the Office for Environmental Protection has been gutted even before it has been created, I cannot see much hope for Natural England. Perhaps the Minister can tell us in her closing remarks how that will pan out.

This is almost entirely England’s problem of course, because it is England’s Government failing on the environment and this Bill is largely an English Bill, but what is done in England affects Scotland in many ways, including funding, because we are stuck in this constricting Union, for the moment at least. I would be happy to see England sort it out for Scotland’s sake, but even more so for the sake of the environment.

We will, however, of course all be in agreement with amendment 26; who in Parliament would ever think it appropriate to go taking the resources of other peoples and lands without the consent of those peoples? Such pillaging of communities should be beyond the pale.

The UK Government could just for once look to Scotland and the initiatives a Government who are ambitious for their citizens and mindful of their duty to protect and improve our environment can legislate for, such as our commitments to active travel and the restoration of our peatlands, our deposit return scheme soon to be implemented, further planting of new woodlands, implementation of the WHO recommendations on PM_2.5 on air pollution, creation of the largest green space project in Europe, the central Scotland green network, and much, much more, with green recovery placed at the heart of successive policy publications: actions rather than just words.

Even in this year when COP26 is to be hosted in Glasgow, the commitment of the UK Government to sorting out some of the mess is minimal if it exists at all. France managed to create the Paris agreement when it headed the conference of the parties; the UK is busy greenwashing what it can and dismantling the rest. Biden is doing the work the UK Government should be doing: dragging commitments out of other Governments. The UK Government like to pretend that the UK is a world leader, but it cannot even lead a conference.

There are elements missing from the Bill that will have to be addressed in the near future, including the lack of clear and binding plans to reduce waste. The World Health Organisation guidelines on particulate levels reduction are missing, and there is nothing on plastic pollution—many public bodies are exempt from the law. I have already mentioned the military and anything that can be covered by the nebulous national security definition, but there are plenty of other examples. To spare the blood pressure of the ardent Brexiteers, I promise I will not mention the rolling back on existing EU protections, but it is there. As the EU continues to press ahead, keeping to environmental protections that the UK’s Environment Secretary described as “spirit-crushing”, the UK will fall behind.

Protecting the environment and making some progress on addressing the climate emergency takes effort, fortitude and a bit of guts to tackle the unpopular things that need to be done. I do not see any evidence of that kind of grit in Whitehall and that is a great shame. Jim Bowen never had the environment behind that screen, but I cannot help reflecting on the fact that this should have been a big win, but is instead a sorry look at what we have not won.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I tabled new clause 2 to address the proposed general licensing requirements for the release of game birds and the environmental benefits of shooting. A campaign group named Wild Justice is repeatedly challenging DEFRA. As a result, Natural England must make assessments of the potential damage to EU-protected sites before granting licences for the release of game species. The proposed assessments are intended to take years to achieve, thus halting the granting of licences. The new clause would shift the requirement for Natural England from mandatory assessments to doing them on a common-sense, case-by-case basis.

Campaign groups such as Wild Justice would like to end all country sports. Often fuelled by emotive and ill-informed rhetoric, such campaigns do not recognise the importance to the environment of country sports and their contribution to not only the rural economy but the conservation of land. The gross value added of shooting stands at £1.7 billion in England and £2 billion in the United Kingdom—£240 million in the west midlands alone. Shooting adds 350,000 direct paid jobs to the market and accounts for 10% of the total amount spent on outdoor recreation each year.

Every year, 3.9 million work days are spent on conservation —the equivalent of 16,000 full-time conservation jobs. Up to 700,000 hectares of farm land are planted with wild bird seed mixes and pollinator strips as a result of game bird management. That is five times greater than the land owned by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Game shooting estates often have 65% more hedgerows than normal farm land. Most statistics show that the sport is not the preserve of the elite: figures from 31 March show that 159,483 firearms certificates and 567,358 shotgun certificates were on issue in England and Wales. That means that at least 1.6 million people are shooting in the UK.

Pheasants have been in the UK continually for the last 2,000 years. Their release, management and subsequent hunting predates all site protections. Indeed, game bird release and management have largely been responsible for the existence of sites of high nature value that are worth protecting. Some 28% of woodlands in England are managed to some extent for game birds—more than are managed for nature conservation. We therefore need to do considerably more to ensure that, if the new clause does not suit the Minister exactly, such provisions are taken on board.

Natural England has two tools to monitor sites: the improvement programme for England’s Natura 2000 sites—IPENS—and a designated sites view, or DSV. The latter identified game bird release as causing an impact across seven sites of special scientific interest—the equivalent of 134 hectares. For context, England’s SSSI network covers 4,100 sites and that is more than 1 million hectares. The worst impacts on nature, unfortunately, are caused by dogs and walkers, and nobody wants to see them campaigned against, so I hope that DEFRA will adopt the gist of this amendment to protect itself—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Kerry McCarthy.

13:30

[Kerry McCarthy]

I would like to begin by praising the work of Wild Justice, whose members are far from ill- informed, absolutely passionate about nature conservation and do some excellent work. I was waiting for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) to mention Labour’s amendment on peat burning. I know that is in the next group, but it was quite surprising that he—

[Bill Wiggin]

I ran out of time.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Yes, well, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can come back for the next debate and make an intervention to show that he supports that amendment. [Interruption.] He can intervene on me, of course.

I would like to speak primarily in favour of amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish); I believe that birthday congratulations are in order today. Deforestation, which destroys vital carbon stores and natural habitats, is both one of the central drivers of the climate emergency and a driver of the devastating decline in biodiversity. As we have heard, it also plays a role in displacing people from their land and leads to modern slavery and exploitative working practices. It is clear that we need a no-tolerance approach to any deforestation in our supply chains, legal or illegal.

The Bill comes before us in a slightly better state than its many previous incarnations due to the Government’s new proposals on due diligence in deforestation, but unfortunately they fall far short of what is needed. The primary issue is that they act only to eliminate illegal deforestation. That ignores the fact that some nations, most notably Bolsonaro’s Brazil, are chipping away at legal protections on deforestation and enforcement mechanisms to identify and prevent it. For instance, the Brazilian Parliament is set to approve new legislation dubbed “the destruction package” that will accelerate deforestation in the Amazon by providing an amnesty to land grabbers and allowing deforestation on indigenous lands for major construction projects. Preliminary WWF research shows that 2 million hectares of forest and natural ecosystems could be legally deforested in the Brazilian territories that supply soya to the UK.

This Bill is a unique opportunity to send a message to those states that fail to act to protect our planet. That is why I urge the Government to think again and to strengthen their proposals to include legal deforestation to show true climate leadership ahead of COP26. I am sure that, if we do not accept these amendments today, the noble peers in the other place will have strong words to say about that, and I hope they will send the Bill back to us suitably amended.

Amendment 27 would prevent financial services from working with firms linked to illegal forest-risk commodities. We cannot claim to be tough on deforestation if we allow British financial institutions to support firms linked to it. These damaging investments are deeply embedded in our economy and sometimes even in our own personal finances. Shocking analysis from Feedback published today shows that even the parliamentary pension fund has investments in companies such as JBS Investments that have been repeatedly linked to deforestation. It is not good that we are being drawn into complicity in this situation through our parliamentary pension fund. I therefore hope the Government will accept these amendments and begin to show global leadership.

I very much support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench, including new clause 25 calling on the Government to prepare a tree strategy for England. We are trying to do this in Bristol in terms of doubling the tree canopy and with our One City ecological emergency strategy, which I encourage other cities and towns to emulate. I also support amendment 22, which would embed the net gain of habitats in perpetuity. I urge colleagues across the House to accept these amendments. If we fail to do that today, as I said, I am sure that the noble Lords in the other place will take up these causes with their customary vigour.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this landmark Bill, which aims to ensure that the environment is at the heart of Government policy. I am pleased that it intends to better conserve our environment, tackle biodiversity loss and regenerate parts of our great countryside.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for his tireless efforts on environmental issues, including his work on food labelling and environmental sustainability. I was very proud, in the previous Parliament, to co-sponsor his Bill on that matter, much of the contents of which are set to come back to this House later today. This, along with new clause 4, demonstrates that so much more can be done to strengthen our commitments to the environment by protecting vulnerable species. I welcome the Minister’s statements today and her commitment to review ways that we can reverse the decline in hedgehog numbers.

I think we can also help the population to make informed choices. Recently, I visited Rodbaston College in my Stafford constituency. I was delighted to tour the animal zone, where a number of my young constituents are learning to work with a variety of animals, learning how to protect our native species such as the otter and learning to train for careers in conservation. New clause 4, which aims to insert hedgehogs into the Bill as a protected species, is an important reminder of how interconnected nature is, and the important need to retain and to protect species such as the hedgehog.

It may surprise some people to know that a key factor in the reduction of the number of hedgehogs is in fact keeping gardens too tidy and the lack of wildlife corridors in fenced-in gardens. Last week, I was pleased to re-form the all-party parliamentary group for fruit, vegetables and horticulture, which I co-chair, and I led a conversation with Alan Titchmarsh, in which we discussed how gardeners can work with nature to improve habitats for other wildlife, including hedgehogs. New clause 21 aims to protect habitats better. I think we can all do our bit by providing wildlife corridors and creating hedgehog homes, as I have in my own garden. No Mow May is an initiative that is very popular with my constituents: people do absolutely nothing to their lawn in May, which can significantly improve the ecosystem of their garden. The wonderful thing about nature is that it wants to recover. We just need to give it the opportunity to do so.

I believe that the measures in this Bill lay the groundwork to significantly improve our environment. The Bill, particularly new clause 21, clearly demonstrates our Government’s commitment to protecting the unique and diverse habitats that we have in Britain. I was pleased recently to visit the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust’s Wolseley Centre to see at first hand its project to replicate a wide variety of habitats in Staffordshire, including woodlands, ponds, and wet and hay meadows. These habitats are providing homes for a range of flora and fauna. The measures in the Bill ensure that we can protect these for generations to come.

One of the reasons these steps are so effective and increase biodiversity is that we are helping other species in the ecosystem to thrive, which in turn leads to a richer and more resilient environment. That is why I believe it is so vital that we reverse the biodiversity loss we have already suffered in the UK, and that is why I welcome the focus in the Bill. I welcome the Bill along with the new clause I have discussed due to their aim to conserve our environment and increase biodiversity. We need to protect and improve our precious environment for generations to come.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this important debate today. I would like to cut to the chase, because time is short. I think it is worth reiterating the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard): we do face a climate emergency and an ecological emergency. Put simply, these are existential threats to humanity on this planet. We must, as he rightly said, not only slow down the car that is speeding towards the cliff, but stop it, turn it around and drive the other way.

The question we need to discuss today is whether this Bill is enough to stop that car. In my opinion, it simply is not. It does make some small steps forward—I grant the Government that, and I am very keen to work with colleagues across the House on this matter—but I think we have to be honest with ourselves: it does not take the significant series of steps that we all support, I would hope, and that we as a country and the wider world urgently need.

I will highlight three key issues before mentioning a few local points. On tree planting, I am not sure the Government fully understand the difficulty of rolling out a major programme of tree planting, given the wide range of landowners they need to work with, the importance of supporting local authorities and the practical difficulties, such as the number of man and woman hours that it takes to plant a large number of trees. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), rightly spoke about the importance of biodiversity and supporting trees—which are not only good in themselves in capturing carbon, but have a beneficial effect on the landscape, for example, stopping erosion—and about promoting native trees rather than those that do not support such a wide range of animals and plants. The interesting comparison here is a sycamore versus an oak tree. An oak tree might support 1,000 plants and animals, but a sycamore, which is not native, does not support anything like that—it supports only a few species.

There are also important weaknesses in terms of air quality. This is a major issue in my Reading East constituency, where a huge amount of traffic flows through the town, a legacy problem with the way roads are laid out in our area, and many families have severe concerns about the health of children, older people and the population as a whole.

On the oceans—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport also mentioned this issue—we face a huge challenge around the world, with the growth of plastics in the oceans. There are many other problems as well.

I would like to work on a cross-party basis with colleagues, but we need to understand the urgency of the matters that should be addressed by the Bill. Our residents in our local communities are telling us that. I am sure I am not the only person here present today who has a groaning postbag, with many different concerns raised by local people. There are far too many to mention in full, but I want to just cover a couple of them.

A good example is the scale of concern about sewage flowing into rivers. Reading sits on the River Thames and the River Kennet. We have a large population, with people who want to wild swim in the Thames and other water users. Many people enjoy boating and fishing. We need to deal with this problem urgently and it relates to the other issues we have talked about today.

In my area, we are also very concerned about the planning liberalisation proposed by the Government, which is completely mistaken. As many Conservative Members who represent similar seats in southern England will know, it could dramatically change the local landscape, lead to a huge amount of infilling between existing towns and cities, degrade the quality of life in existing suburbs by putting large blocks of flats between rows of existing houses, and lead to building on the green lungs of towns and cities. So I urge the Government— I realise this does not relate directly to this Bill—to address this matter, completely scrap and reconsider their approach to planning, and revert to the traditional tried and tested approach which has stood us in good stead since world war two.

Very briefly—I realise I am in danger of running over time, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will indicate my support for new clause 25, on trees; amendment 46, on the rainforest, from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, which I whole- heartedly support; amendment 22, on habitat protection; new clause 12, on banning fracking—a very important measure and there are local concerns about that in our area—and new clause 24, on banning heather burning.

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

I will speak to amendment 45. Clause 95 is an important step forward because it changes the duty on public authorities: the duty is not just to conserve biodiversity, but to enhance it. That is a big change and one of the big measures in the Bill. Amendment 45 would add to that by requiring public authorities to consider what action they can take to contribute to the achievement of targets under the UN convention on biological diversity. This is a big year with COP26 coming up, but we also have, at Kunming in October—about the time the Bill may well become law—the renewal of the convention and the plan for the next 10 years. I invite the Minister to consider how we can leverage the nature target, for example, which has just been announced, to make such commitments international so that we are changing not just Britain, but the world.

The last CBD that set out a 10-year plan was in 2010; the Aichi targets. It is true that in our country we have done a lot of the things that were proposed, but internationally only one target out of 20 has been achieved: number 11, on protecting 17% of land and water. There is an opportunity, later this year, to go much further. The Government have already made commitments on the sort of measures we should be trying to negotiate, such as protecting 30%, not 17%, of land and seas, and protecting species. I think there is an opportunity to put this in the Bill, although I am just probing the Minister on that. Really, I want to know what the Government’s plans are to take the initiatives in this landmark Bill and make them international. I know the Minister probably has a lot to say when she winds up the debate, but it would be welcome if she touched on the global aspects.

13:45

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will restrict my remarks to amendments 47 and 49, which stand in my name, and amendment 29, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). The amendments have in common the aim of protecting the landscape and the environment both in very rural areas like mine and in urban and suburban parts of the UK that are threatened by the Government’s planning reforms.

Amendments 47 and 49 would ensure that environmental land management schemes contain a mechanism to deliver adequate financial support to our farmers for delivering landscape benefits, in particular species conservation and protected site strategies, and so rewarding our farmers for maintaining the beauty of our landscape. We have done that inadvertently through various funding schemes over the past few decades, but it is about to drop by the wayside. It is hard to put a price on landscape beauty, but it is vital that we do so.

In the lake district and the Yorkshire dales, in a normal year our Cumbria tourism economy is worth more than £3 billion and employs 60,000 people in our county—tourism is comfortably the biggest employer in Cumbria. Underpinning that economy is the beauty of the landscape.

[Neil Parish]

I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. Farming, landscape and tourism are closely integrated. As we deal with the Environment Bill, we have to remember that agriculture and tourism are interlinked, especially in the rural parts of this great country of ours.

[Tim Farron]

The Select Committee Chair is absolutely right, and I completely agree. We have to find a mechanism to make sure that we reward those who maintain the beauty of our landscape.

I have often been in places such as Barbondale, Dentdale, Langdale, Kentmere, Longsleddale and other glorious bits of my part of the world. I almost feel compelled to express envy of the hill farmer I am with in his or her glorious environment, but often the response is a slightly sad look that says, “I can’t eat the view.” It is all very well having a beautiful place, but if those who work there make a pittance, what good is it to them? That is what is happening in the uplands, where people are steadily moving away as farms fail and close. The Government’s plan to offer early retirement to farmers offers no mechanism to get young people in to replace them, and just in the last few days, the only agricultural college in Cumbria has closed.

I am desperate to ensure that the ELMS rewards farmers for landscape value, but there is currently no effective mechanism to do that. That should be added, which is why the amendment matters. I am also concerned about what the Bill means for the status of some of the beautiful parts of the United Kingdom. UNESCO awarded world heritage site status to the lake district just a few years ago. The report that resulted in the award of that status gave as much credit to the farmers as it did to the glaciers. These are managed, crafted landscapes, and we should reward the farmers who provide them.

There are many bad things about our not being in the EU, but one good thing is that we do not need to borrow EU measures. We do not need to borrow the plan for funding ELMS through the mechanism of income forgone. We should be rewarding farmers for the value of what they do, not paying the pittance they were paid in the first place.

In the time left, I will speak to amendment 29. Local nature resource strategies are a good idea. They are welcome, but they are weak, and they will not be worth the paper they are written on if they are not material to the considerations and decisions made by local planning committees. If we are to protect our green belt, whether it be in such places as the constituency of the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), other parts of the ring around London, or indeed a very rural area like mine, we must not put planners in a situation where they have no power to prevent developers from damaging the countryside or, as is the case in a place like mine, to prevent developers from delivering up to 50 houses without having to deliver a single affordable property.

Nine out of 10 planning permission applications get passed. More than a million planning applications for homes have not been delivered. Planning is not the problem; planning is the protection for our communities and our environment. That is why this amendment is important to try to undo and mitigate some of the Government’s attack on our rural communities.

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and it is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. It was over a year ago that I made my maiden speech specifically so that I had the opportunity to contribute to the Second Reading of this Bill, so it is a pleasure to be back here again.

It is worth reflecting on the context of where we are now, because in the intervening time, the pieces of our country and the world have been almost thrown into the air, and we still do not quite know where they will land. The pandemic makes the Bill even more important than it was over a year ago. It is fair to say that all of us have had time to reassess priorities. We have considered our priorities in life—our quality of life, our family, our health and our friends—and this Bill has become even more important, because many of us, with the roads quiet and having limited time to get out, have reflected on the importance of our natural environment and what is around us. Our appreciation of nature and the need to focus on species loss and the things that make our environment unique to our localities are even more important than they were.

With respect, I must disagree with the shadow Secretary of State’s characterisation of this as not being a landmark Bill, because it is a landmark Bill. It is a bold Bill. I particularly reject the characterisation that it is a mark of a Government or, indeed, any Member on the Government Benches not caring about the environment, because it absolutely is not that.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

In our area, there are a lot of chalk streams. Does my hon. Friend agree that for our population and our area, points that the Government have agreed on, such as not having sewage overflows into the streams and treating low flows as damage that has to be restored, are incredibly valuable things?

[Julie Marson]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend and neighbour, because I will come on to mention chalk streams, which are such a vital part of our environment as a country, particularly in Hertford and Hertfordshire. In Hertford and Stortford—I may be biased—we have one of the most beautiful places in the world to live and work, and this Bill is important to me and my constituents.

We are going to rely on many of the Bill’s provisions. Development is a major driver of species loss and environmental degradation, so the biodiversity net gain requirements will be critical for us in protecting our environment. We have swathes of green belt that will be developed, and there is lots of infill development. This Bill will be really important to help us to retain our environment in those circumstances. I thank the Minister for her engagement with the all-party parliamentary group on chalk streams, because that has produced some strong commitments and practical solutions.

In my constituency in Hertfordshire, we have five amazing chalk streams: the Stort, the Mimram, the Beane, the Ash and the River Lea. We all know that they have been called the rainforests of the environment, because they are so key to diversity in the ecosystem. I absolutely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the provisions in the Bill about chalk streams are extremely welcome and important.

I am pleased to speak also as the RSPB champion for the kestrel, because these things are inextricably linked. In Rye Meads nature reserve in my constituency, the kestrel has declined drastically, but focus on chalk streams and the wildlife they produce will help the kestrel as well. The environment is so complex, and I welcome the progress we have made and thank the Minister for her engagement on that.

When I spoke last time, I quoted Rudyard Kipling, and although I will not overuse his beautiful words, what he said is that we cannot just sit back and expect everything—our beautiful land—to happen without us playing our part. I believe that this Bill is very much us playing our part.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The environment is the bedrock of our economy and our wellbeing. It is not something separate from ourselves; it is in the food we eat and the places where we live. I know this, as do my constituents in Feltham and Heston. Whether they are emailing me about biodiversity, badger culling, air pollution, habitats, parks, clean and green streets or everything in between, it is clear that they care about the environment and about the other creatures that we share nature with. Indeed, I was a member of Friends of the Earth before I joined the Labour party as a teenager.

As we prepare to host COP26 in November and as we leave the EU’s regulatory frameworks, now is the time to create positive, impactful, long-lasting environmental protections. Unfortunately, the Government do not seem prepared to strengthen our legislation fully on environmental protections, instead seeming to give the Secretary of State too much discretion and refusing to implement too many of the changes that we need. Lockdown highlighted more than ever the importance of nature for our nation’s health and our wellbeing, but under the Tories, wildlife has been on a downward spiral, with 44% of species in decline over the last 10 years and tree planting targets being missed by over 50%. I want to see nature protected, which is why I am also supporting new clause 25—along with others I have signed that are in the name of the Opposition Front Benchers—to ensure that we are focused not just on planting new trees, but on protecting and maintaining existing woodlands. Hounslow Council’s work on this has been inspiring, and I am proud to also be an environmental champion.

I want to speak briefly about plastics, because the pandemic has also vividly illustrated the scale of waste created by single-use and throwaway packaging. Public, political and corporate concerns over plastic pollution are strong. We have a real opportunity to reduce the volume of single-use plastics that are harming our environment, our oceans and our health.

In March 2018, the Government first confirmed that they would introduce a deposit return scheme in England for single-use drinks containers, including plastic, glass and metal. This went out for consultation in February 2019. Respondents to the consultation overwhelmingly backed a deposit return scheme, which is also very much supported by Heston Action Group, Cranford Action Group and many others across west London and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury).

The Government were going to introduce a deposit return scheme from 2023, but two months ago, a consultation document confirmed that it would not now happen until late 2024 at the earliest. There is a clear case to proceed, so can the Minister explain why they need to explore whether there is a continued appetite for a deposit return scheme in a post-covid context? This is an excuse, not a reason. We should be introducing a deposit return scheme well before late 2024. Although proposals to establish a DRS are contained in the Bill, it does not say what materials will be included within a scheme, nor the deposit price.

World Environment Day is on 5 June, just next week. We need to be engaging young people on the importance of our natural world. I recently held an environment photography competition inviting young people aged 18 and under to send in a drawing or photo that represented nature to them, so we can see the environment through the eyes of young people. The entries have shown how much young people in Feltham and Heston care about the environment and about the importance of reducing, reusing and recycling. We cannot let these young people down. It is their futures that this Bill will affect, and it is this Parliament’s responsibility to protect our environment for the generations to come. This needs a serious long-term plan and the political will to deliver it.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) [V]]

Many of us will be glad to see the back of endless Zoom calls that merge into one another. One that will always remain with me was the first time that I met Des, the brown long-eared bat. It was the first time that I had seen one of these remarkable creatures close up, and he did indeed have the most spectacular ears, almost as long as his body. I was meeting Des because I am the Bat Conservation Trust’s species champion for brown long-eared bats—a species that are quite common in Rushcliffe and across Nottinghamshire, but whose numbers are in decline owing to habitat loss. Sadly, Des and his fellow bats are not alone. In the UK, there has been on average a 13% decline in species abundance since 1970, with a steeper decline seen in the past 10 years. Species extinction is a very real danger for one in 10 species here in the UK. That is why the provisions in the Bill are so important. I strongly welcome the requirement for all new developments to have a biodiversity net gain of over 10%.

14:00

New homes are important, but we must do more to protect our beautiful countryside from overdevelopment. We must exhaust our options on local brownfield sites before allowing more development on nearby countryside. Thanks to the Bill, the homes that we build must deliver, rather than detract from, biodiversity. That will be so important for species, like bats, that use existing structures for their roosts and are loyal to them. The type of homes we develop can make a huge difference to how welcome they feel.

I also welcome the requirements for local authorities to produce nature recovery strategies as part of a 500,000-hectare nature recovery network, the largest restoration project in England’s history. I am delighted to hear that the Bill will be further strengthened with a legally binding target for species abundance. This will halt the decline in nature in England by 2030. It is a world-leading measure, which will help to redress the biodiversity loss that we have seen in the past 50 years.

I am also relieved that the Bill will help to tackle biodiversity loss overseas, in particular illegal deforestation, which is the cause of half of all tropical forest deforestation. We will be the first country in the world to put due diligence requirements on large businesses that use forest-risk commodities in their products. Any such commodities must be produced in accordance with local laws. Businesses must establish a system of due diligence for each regulated commodity and report annually on it. That process rests on the principle of productive partnership with Governments around the world, building on successful programmes like the Partnership for Forests programme, but we must remain alive to the reality that local laws may be distorted and changed to suit commercial agendas. I am thinking in particular of the shameful actions we are seeing from the Brazilian Government. We must be prepared for even stronger action to protect tropical forests if this does not change.

This Environment Bill is a fantastic step forward. It provides a strong platform for our negotiations at the UN biodiversity conference and our presidency of COP26 this autumn, and I look forward to telling Des at our next meeting the good news that we have passed the Bill.

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

I am pleased to speak in this vital debate. Given the short time that we have, I shall focus on new clauses 21 and 22, two wide-ranging new clauses tabled by the Government, and my amendments (a) and (b), which I plan to press to a Division.

These new clauses would give the Secretary of State the power to amend the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. These are critical pieces of legislation, the mainstay of conservation law. Although there is undoubtedly a strong case for aligning laws that protect habitats and species with the goal of halting the decline of nature by 2030, I am concerned that the Government proposal is for new regulations that in fact could replace the habitats regulations and risk losing vital protection for wildlife, rather than adding to them. Yet the Bill is not a replacement for the nature directives. They serve two distinct purposes. The first—the Bill—sets an overarching nature’s recovery. The second provides protection for particular species and habitats, including particular local populations and individual specimens.

In order to fully restore nature, we need both species and site-specific protection, as well as a bold overall goal. As these new clauses are currently drafted, though, they risk removing the much needed protection of species and nature-critical areas, such as great crested newts or special areas of conservation, with significant damage to particular wildlife being masked by hoped-for overall trends of improvement. We know that the scale and health of individual populations are crucial to restoring biodiversity. I am also concerned that there has been no prior consultation or engagement with stakeholders on these amendments and that neither an impact assessment nor the supplementary delegated powers memorandum has been published.

In the light of those concerns, I have tabled two small amendments to new clause 21, simply replacing “instead of” with “in addition to”, which would ensure that the existing objectives in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations are not replaced, but added to. They would enable the habitats regulations to be aligned with the objectives outlined in the Environment Bill without risking the protection of specific sites, species or populations.

These amendments are not about being frozen in time. I recognise that change is necessary—I was online earlier listening to the Minister’s introductory remarks, so I heard what she said—but the new framework must be about improving environmental protection rather than creating the potential at least to weaken it. Even if this Government have no plans to weaken regulations, as I hope they do not, this is a once-in-a-generation Bill and it must be future-proofed. There is no guarantee that a future Minister in a future Government will not choose to use this opportunity to water down protections, and we need safeguards against that. These are therefore entirely reasonable amendments, which I hope very much the Government will support.

In the last bit of time that I have left, I simply want to say a few words about new clause 16, tabled by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), which would make the protection of biodiversity a condition of planning permission. I am sure the Minister is aware of the threat currently faced by Knepp estate, one of the UK’s best known and most successful rewilding projects, by a development being proposed by Thakeham Homes, which would destroy local habitat and obstruct vital wildlife corridors and connections between Knepp and neighbouring areas. As this project will deliver on the objectives laid out in the Environment Bill, I would welcome confirmation that the Minister is in contact with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that he is championing its cause and will intervene in this case.

It has been 25 years since the last UK-wide Environment Act was passed. In that time, the speed and scale of destruction have increased dramatically. We need a bold new Bill and we need to do more to make this Bill what we need.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on this important Bill and on a vital issue that is central to the people of Derbyshire Dales and, indeed, of the world. This is a landmark Bill and I have been waiting for it for many years.

Environmentalism is at the heart of building back better, not just on these islands but as part of the Prime Minister’s vision for a global Britain. Tackling climate change and biodiversity loss was listed as the United Kingdom’s No.1 international priority in the recent review of defence and foreign policy. There can be no doubt that the environment is safest when it is in the hands of a sensible Conservative Government. Rather than delivering hot air, this Government are delivering conservation.

Of special interest to Derbyshire Dales is what the Government are doing in relation to tree planting and peatland restoration. These are huge issues locally and should be so internationally. It is through the nature for climate fund and also with the creation of the Nature Recovery Network that we will see better policies and better things going forward. We will also get a more connected and richer wildlife habitat.

I welcome the fact that, in a 25-year environment plan, the Government will be introducing three new schemes, which are very well thought out and planned, to reward farmers and land managers for producing public goods. Such planning is non-existent on the Opposition Benches. These schemes are most welcome and will be adapted, I am sure, to suit all of our farmers, including my upland farmers in Derbyshire Dales.

In the months since my election, I have been delighted to meet and work with organisations locally that care deeply about this—they are committed to the environment in Derbyshire Dales—such as Moors for the Future partnership, which is leading the country in this area, and the Minister knows full well about its work. This work is vital and it is the Conservative Government who are supporting it. Free of the shackles of Europe, we can focus on what we can do on our part of this precious planet.

I have visited many farmers in my constituency. They are a quiet and rugged people. They do not need to be attacked; they need to be supported. They live and work in a day-to-day partnership with nature, and this Government are doing that. I know just how much all the people of Derbyshire Dales care about the environment. I recently met with the Wirksworth Anglican church and other churches in the Wellspring group, which care passionately about the environment. Whatever people’s politics, if they care about the environment, I will work with them and get this Government to continue their good work on the environment.

With new technology and industry, under this Conservative Government we will be leading the way for not just a greener UK but a greener world. Derbyshire County Council, ably led by Councillor Barry Lewis and his newly elected Conservative colleagues, is at the forefront of plans to try to introduce a fleet of zero-emission hydrogen buses, supported by smart mobility hubs. These are huge advances being made by Conservatives working together across the whole nation. There is also the county council’s new £2 million green entrepreneurs fund, which will support small and medium-sized businesses. In terms of the emphasis on local authorities, Derbyshire Dales District Council, led by Councillor Garry Purdy and his hard-working councillor Sue Hobson as deputy, works tirelessly on environmental issues, promoting things as small as wild flowers and trees, which are hugely significant.

In conclusion, the people of Derbyshire Dales, the farmers who till this land and care for their livestock and the people who live on our moors and our uplands are in touch with the environment; they need support and help, and this Government are giving it. While they need no prompting to look after that landscape, the provisions in the Bill will make their job a lot easier. This is a Government who are actually delivering.

[Bob Seely]

I will speak briefly in favour of four amendments. First, I pay tribute to the Minister for her hard work in seeing the Bill through and the fact that, even now, she is determined to try to improve it by adding new clauses, showing diligence on her and her team’s part, which we all welcome. I especially welcome the action on sewage. We had problems in Ryde and Sandown recently with sewage coming from Southern Water, so such action is welcome on the Isle of Wight, and I congratulate Surfers Against Sewage and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) on his great work, as well as the Minister on supporting it.

Of the four amendments I will refer to, one is tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), one by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and two by me. They are probing amendments, seeking reassurance. If the Minister thinks that the work is in the Bill, that is good enough for me, but I would like to put these ideas forward to ensure that they are.

On amendment 41, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke amendment, I find it absolutely bizarre that character is not a prerequisite for major planning applications—I am not talking about a bungalow extension or a patio but significant development. Criminal records, poor behaviour, threats to intimidate others and mass tree felling do not seem to be things that we can take into account.

We have a Mr John Cooper in the Isle of Wight who owns a caravan park in an area of outstanding natural beauty. He has recently cut down 50 oak trees to build a caravan park extension. If that planning permission comes forward, we cannot turn him down on his appalling behaviour. He has gone to ground since then, and it would be nice if he made a public statement to folk on the Isle of Wight on what he is up to. I thank Councillor Peter Spink for pointing this out. Character needs to be part of the planning process, because we know that there are some rogue developers. I know that this is about planning, but importantly, as I am sure the Minister would agree, it is also about environmental protection. The more layers and safeguards that we can put in to protect landscape, the better.

I will not go into new clause 16, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, because I know that she will speak to it soon very eloquently. In the remaining minute and a half, I would like to speak to my two amendments. New clause 27 would require tree preservation orders for all mature trees and protected landscapes. It is a no-brainer, unless the Minister says, “Actually, Bob, I think we’ve got this covered. We accept the argument, but our proposals go further,” and I will take that on trust.

New clause 26 is on SSSIs, which are very important. I have an SSSI on the Isle of Wight that is about to be concreted over because of a loophole in planning and environmental law. I have written to Ministers about this, and I am afraid to say that the responses have been a little perfunctory, to put it mildly. There is clearly a problem here, because there is a time limit under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which means that if someone has a caravan or temporary home on a SSSI and it is not taken away within a certain timeframe, they can effectively develop that SSSI. They may not be able to stick permanent homes on it, but they can stick 200 caravans on it and concrete over the entire SSSI. How on earth can that be right? I know the Minister is concerned about the environment, so if she thinks that is covered in the Bill, I take it on trust, but if not will she please take forward this new clause and incorporate it either here or in the other place? This is absolutely a useful provision that closes an important loophole where SSSIs are damaged recklessly by people who deliberately game the system. I thank her for listening.

14:15

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]]

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on clauses relating to nature, biodiversity and conservation in this important Bill. Although some of them relate to devolved matters, as with most of the big challenges of this century the environment and nature do not respect borders and it is important that strong legislation is in place across these islands to reverse the decline of nature and protect native species and biodiversity.

The Social Democratic and Labour party has just undertaken a big consultation ahead of private Members’ legislation on biodiversity loss in Northern Ireland. We found significant support for stronger legislation to protect nature, including the need for short-term and long-term targets, cross-departmental responsibility and a co-ordinated response and approach across Britain and Northern Ireland.

The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, in particular Northern Ireland, with more than 11% of indigenous species at risk of extinction. This is the price being paid for a fairly obsessive approach to economic growth and expansion at all costs. To date, the UK and others have continuously and consistently missed targets in relation to biodiversity recovery, including any of the 20 Aichi targets agreed in 2010. Although this is by no means a failure of the UK Government alone, as one of the largest economies and a major contributor, directly and indirectly, through activities across the world, the UK must take seriously its leadership role, particularly in this year when it hosts the G7 and COP26. I welcome the commitment to conservation strategies in the Bill and believe that they can be strengthened by amendment 45, which seeks to avoid a repeat of the IT failures and to ensure that those targets are meaningful and met.

We are experiencing the impact of the decline and destruction of nature in the wellbeing of people around the world, from the destruction of the habitats of indigenous people and the emergence of climate refugees to, of course, the spread of disease. We are well beyond crisis point, and if that was not clear before the pandemic surely that has educated us all about the stark links between the destruction of nature and our lives. An intergovernmental report has warned that we are in the era of pandemics unless the destruction of the natural world is halted. Again, that has happened not by chance but through an obsessive pursuit of growth.

Among the most important provisions in this Bill are those that can force UK companies to look at their supply chains and ensure they are not supporting illegal deforestation in other countries. I particularly welcome amendments 26, 27, 36 and 37, which I have signed, which would strengthen and enforce provision against illegal deforestation. The UK is one of the biggest sources of finance linked to companies involved in deforestation and we cannot hide any longer behind the lack of transnational governance or the lack of enforcement or binding regulations in countries of operation; we cannot look the other way from activities done overseas to the economic benefit of companies here or to underpin consumption habits here. It is positive that global brands have urged the strengthening of that law, but it is important that the Government ensure that supply chains are transformed.

This is a very important Bill offering a big opportunity to strengthen legislation, but it needs to be improved by many of the amendments that have been tabled, including those I have mentioned.

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

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. This place is admired for its rigorous scrutiny—the new clauses and amendments proposed by Members from across the House are no exception—and I believe the Government are genuinely listening to concerns. Further amendments have been made to the Bill since I served in the Public Bill Committee last year.

The changes being debated today are important to the residents of Truro and Falmouth, because Cornwall is on the frontline of the UK’s battle against climate change. With respect, I disagree with the shadow Minister, because in my opinion this is a landmark Bill. It is not the end of the story or even the beginning of it, but it is a landmark moment. It puts in place a world-leading framework for environmental improvement and governance, including legally binding targets and environmental improvement plans; an independent green watchdog which will help Parliament and more importantly, my constituents to hold the Government to account on their commitments; and measures to reverse the decline in nature at home and overseas and to tackle waste. Ministers know that this is part of an ongoing process and that we Back Benchers will continue to press further, harder and at pace.

On water quality, the extensive work and lobbying by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, have resulted in the Government’s commitment to publishing a plan by 2022 to reduce sewage discharges and to report to Parliament on progress, and to place a legal duty on water companies to publish data on storm overflow operations on an annual basis. The Bill also requires the Government to set a legally binding target for water quality. That will be particularly welcomed by Surfers Against Sewage, which is based in St Agnes in my constituency and campaigns tirelessly on this issue. I continue to press Government on its behalf and on behalf of everyone who, like me, regularly swims outdoors.

I praise the Government on new clause 21, which Ministers set out previously. It amends the Bill to set additional legally binding targets for species abundance for 2030 to halt the decline of nature. That could be the “net zero” for nature, finally addressing the biodiversity decline, and I am pleased that that target will go alongside other legally binding targets for waste, water quality and air quality.

I have concerns about how compatible this is with the forthcoming planning White Paper, and I wish to give an example of what can be achieved if the will is there. On the A30 between Chiverton and Carland Cross, in the midst of my constituency, Costain is delivering an 8.7-mile dual carriageway for Highways England. Journeys on this part of the road are regularly delayed and congestion often brings the traffic to a standstill, especially in peak holiday time, and as a result the Cornish economy is being held back. Following a recent visit to the project and a meeting with the team, it is evident to me that they are committed to protecting nature’s net gain. Biodiversity and conservation improvements are at the heart of the scheme. The project has a 10% biodiversity net gain target and is predicted to smash it. Developers take note: this is possible. Costain and its environment manager, Ali Thomas, are deeply committed to and passionate about protecting the environment. The landscape and ecological design proposals they have developed include planting nectar-rich wild flowers indigenous to Cornwall; tree and hedge planting, which will replace loss; crossings for otters, bats, badgers and other animals that will be built along the road; and a variety of foraging, nesting and roosting opportunities for other species. Other innovative measures are happening, but I do not have time to go into that this afternoon.

To conclude, with the G7 in Cornwall next month and COP26 in Glasgow later this year, we hope that this Environment Bill, which is a truly groundbreaking piece of legislation, will signal to the rest of the world that this Government and this country are serious about protecting our environment for the long term.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. The World Wide Fund for Nature’s “Living Planet Report 2020” showed an average 68% decline in mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish since 1970. That is heart- breaking. We are in a climate and ecological emergency, but, as we all know, with this Bill we have a real opportunity to change course. We could still restore biodiversity, increase wildlife numbers and protect nature. Sadly, the Labour amendments proposed in Committee were rejected and defeated by the Government. Those amendments concerned protecting and enhancing the powers of the OEP, World Health Organisation air pollution limits and comprehensive action on waste and recycling. The draft Bill was a missed opportunity. It has since been improved in some ways, but as colleagues and many environmental non-governmental organisations have highlighted, we have much further to go. The Government need to stop resisting concrete protections set down and start putting their money where their mouth is and protecting our environment.

Like other Members, I want to talk about deforestation. We need to remove deforestation and conversion from UK supply chains, and increase due diligence obligations. There are elements of due diligence in the Bill, but, according to the World Wildlife Fund, they do not go far enough to protect the world’s forests and other natural ecosystems, nor do they meet the UK’s goals on climate and nature. That is why I support amendments 26, 27, 36, 37 and 38, which would ensure that these due diligence measures covered deforestation and financial institutions, as well as being subject to a more progressive review requirement.

The Bill as it stands does not address the financing behind deforestation. Global Witness’s research points to evidence that suggests that financial institutions are failing to act on deforestation risks and will not be required to do so until bound by law; it is time that we did that. It is crucial that free, prior and informed consent is obtained from indigenous peoples and local communities, and that relevant local laws are complied with. It is also crucial that decisions affecting the natural environment, such as planning decisions, are informed by local nature recovery strategies.

On biodiversity, Labour is drawing a clear line through amendment 22, which would require habitats secured under biodiversity gain to be maintained in perpetuity, rather than the current 30 years specified in the Bill. It would also ensure that the habitat secured under biodiversity gain is secured “in its target condition”.

On trees, new clause 25 has my full support, as the Blaydon constituency has breathtaking woodlands and forests. The Government should publish a proper tree strategy for England. The current plan sets targets for tree planting, but has little else on protecting, maintaining and restoring existing woodlands. We need a full strategy that holds the Government to account and sets targets for such areas.

Amendment 46 would ensure that species conservation strategies contribute to nature recovery, and that the measures within them contribute to the enhancement of the conservation of species they concern. This could, for instance, ensure that effective strategies are put in place to restore the populations of bees and other pollinator species, and protect them from pesticide use.

On local government, the Bill’s aspirations could be undermined by the planning White Paper. Local authorities must be funded properly if they are to make the most of biodiversity gain in planning applications.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

It was an honour to serve on the Environment Bill Committee, as it is to speak today on Report. My thanks go to the Minister and all who have worked so hard on this landmark Bill.

The biodiversity amendments are particularly important to my constituency of Ynys Môn, with its incredible biodiversity supporting common and rarer species. The rare lesser-spotted yellow rock rose—the county flower of Ynys Môn—grows near my home, and at a visit to the National Trust Plas Newydd last week, I was lucky to see native red squirrels. Anglesey Sea Zoo offers an introduction to the secrets of the local marine world. When I joined a North Wales Wildlife Trust beach clean this month, I was horrified to find hundreds of plastic cotton bud shafts, tiny plastic nurdles, foreign plastic containers and bottles old enough to be labelled in shillings.

Last week, one of my young constituents, Wilfy, took me on a walk past Llyn Penrhyn to Ysgol y Tywyn as part of National Walk to School Week. He and his friends in Mrs Griffiths’s class spoke of their concerns about the impact of non-biodegradable waste on their natural environment. We all do our bit for the island. Next Tuesday, I am running my own beach clean as part of Spring Clean Cymru. Gerald Thomas and other farmers plant and maintain native species hedgerows, and sick and injured hedgehogs are restored to health by Sue Timperley at Hedgehuggles. Sue will be delighted to hear the Minister’s news on hedgehogs today.

We cannot achieve the biodiversity targets proposed in the Bill without global action. Non-biodegradable waste is a global problem, and it affects the symbiotic relationship of our natural environment. Both the UK and Welsh Governments have already banned the supply of some non-reusable plastics. Part 6 of the Bill covers England only, but I urge the Welsh Government to enact similar legislation on biodiversity targets as soon as possible.



This year, the UK holds the presidencies of both the G7 in Cornwall and COP26 in Glasgow, and I hope we will use this Conservative Government’s landmark Bill to lead the way on global action to make long-term improvements for habitats and biodiversity worldwide. If we achieve nothing else, let us give Wilfy and his class- mates on Anglesey a natural environment that improves as they get older, not one that continues to decline.

14:30

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Every aspect of this Environment Bill will have an impact not only now, but for decades if not centuries, so I am pleased to see it return to the House because we cannot afford to wait. Inaction risks the lives of our children, grandchildren and future generations, and legislation on targets, plans and policies is essential to turn the tide. Yet, sadly, this Conservative Government have not shown the ambition needed, while pushing back responsibilities on legally binding targets for two decades and failing to put in place concrete protections for the environment from trade agreements. Given their current record for making promises and not delivering, forgive me if I am not surprised.

Sadly, my Slough constituents know the impact of the environment on their lives acutely. Slough has the second highest death rate from the deadly air pollutant PM_2.5. While excellent work is being done at local level by Slough Borough Council, with its low emission strategy and air quality action plan, if nothing further is done at a macro level by Government, we will continue to breathe these dangerous levels of pollution. So can the Minister outline why the Tories voted down the Labour party’s attempts to write World Health Organisation air pollution limits into this Bill?

It seems as though Government rhetoric far outweighs action when it comes to the environment. This is epitomised by the England trees action plan, with targets being missed, staggeringly, by over 50%. This has a real impact because, being a densely populated urban area, Slough has the lowest level of tree canopy in Berkshire and is below the national minimum target of 20% tree cover. While the Labour council with its limited resources is planting 9,000 trees locally, again, more must be done nationally by providing adequate funding, direction and resources to local authorities. As the WWF rightly notes, this Bill does

“not go far enough to protect the world’s forests and other critical natural ecosystems.”

How can the Minister and the Government allow this to continue?

Sadly, this trend extends to biodiversity and species conservation, with very real consequences for my constituency and our planet. Another local project I recently visited, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, has seen this in Slough’s Salt Hill stream:

“Fish were dying. It was clogged up with old car tyres, carrier bags and household waste. Water quality had deteriorated and its future looked bleak.”

However, its incredible work with the community has meant improved water quality, new homes for wildlife, and engagement and education for local people, but it should never have got to this point. Why are the Government so slow to act to stop the ecological devastation brought about by the continual discharge of untreated sewage, plastics and other effluents into our rivers and oceans?

Nationally, over the past 10 years, wildlife in Britain has seen a 44% decline in species, with some charities calling it a “lost decade for nature”. Again, targets have been woefully missed. The Government conceded last year that they have failed on two thirds of targets agreed at the convention on biological diversity in 2010, but analysis by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds later showed that on six of those targets the UK has actually gone backwards. We must set ourselves ambitious targets and ensure accountability so that they are achieved. This is not the time for complacency, and we should be under no illusion: warm words will not tackle the pressing environmental and climate crises that we are facing as a society.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I rise to speak to amendment 41. It is a probing amendment, which aims to strengthen this important Bill further by including a provision to enable local planning authorities to take unlawful tree felling and a lack of compliance with restocking orders into account when considering planning applications. I thank my former researcher, Annabel Jones, for her work in making the case for change that I am presenting today.

I very much welcome the work that my hon. Friend the Minister has done to make sure that the Bill is the groundbreaking measure that is before us today. I also give my wholehearted support to new clauses 26 and 27, which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) tabled. He spoke eloquently about the need for that change.

I want to focus my remarks on the provisions about tree protection. The Government should be applauded for the trees action plan and the measures in the Bill, which have significantly strengthened protection for one of our vital pieces of green infrastructure. I particularly welcome schedule 15, which directly addresses some of the problems that my residents experienced when a group of landowners illegally felled more than 600 trees, causing environmental devastation in what was an environmental buffer zone. With the Government’s support, the Forestry Commission used its enforcement powers to issue restocking orders, but the landowners did not comply with much of that. Under the Government’s new proposals, enforcement would be much tougher and that is welcome. However, I look forward to the Minister’s response to my amendment to see if we could strengthen it further.

The problem is not unique to Basingstoke. The illegal felling of trees is on the increase and a common motive is taking advantage of the housing development value of the land. In recent years, there have been countless flagrant breaches of felling regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight mentioned a case in his constituency, but there are other cases—in the New Forest, Swansea, Horley and Langley—where trees have been unlawfully felled and in some cases not replanted, even after enforcement action from the courts.

Landowners flout the law because they think can get away with it. Schedule 15 roundly deals with cynical actions by landowners by allowing the courts to reissue planning notices, but amendment 41 is designed to create even more of a disincentive for landowners to flout the law by amending the Town and Country Planning Act to allow local planning authorities to take into account unlawful tree felling and a lack of compliance when considering planning applications. I hope that the Minister can consider that today because I and many of my constituents feel that it is inherently wrong for landowners to profit financially from their unlawful deforestation of land. I hope that this probing amendment will capture her attention and I am keen to hear her response.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and I endorse her comments about amendment 41 and tree felling. I totally support what she hopes to achieve with her probing amendment. In an intervention on the Minister, I asked a similar question and the Minister kindly gave a commitment, so perhaps the right hon. Lady and others will be encouraged by the Minister’s response.

The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) talked about the importance of trees, not only here but across the world and mentioned amendments 26, 27, 36 and 37, which refer to deforestation around the world, and the importance of playing our part in tackling it. I also endorse that.

I want to speak about parts 6 and 7 of the Bill on tree planting. They tackle a particular issue of many trees being felled and the land built over without proper licensing or adhering to permissions. Amendment 41 provides for local planning authorities to take unlawful tree felling and landowners’ lack of compliance with restocking and enforcement orders into account when considering planning applications. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke referred to the removal of 600 trees, some of them important trees. I would like to know and have on record whether the Minister believes that the Bill addresses that issue robustly.

Trees are our lungs, so it is imperative that, any time a tree is felled, it is thought out and the consequences considered, and that steps are taken to replant the trees that have been chopped down. On the family farm we have been able to plant some 3,500 saplings, which is a commitment we have given, and they have grown into trees. It is a beautiful spot on the farm but, importantly, it has also helped our environment by reducing CO₂ and creating wonderful habitats for local wildlife.

I believe that more can be done to encourage landowners to plant trees. The Minister in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has committed himself and his Department to plant 1 million trees on Northern Ireland Water land.

I commend the recent publication of the “England Trees Action Plan”, which contains some important initiatives. It is believed that the Government could do more tree-themed activity on a statutory footing, to fill in the gaps left by the ETAP on protection, restoration and regeneration.

I fully support the comments made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) about the value and importance to the rural countryside of game shooting and the jobs and tourism it creates.

I understand the rationale behind the strategy for conservation, but it does not include help for tree planting. I believe the Minister is committed to tree planting, but perhaps she will comment on that in the wind up.

I endorse the shadow Minister’s comments on the importance of bees to creating the correct balance of habitats in the countryside, and the importance of ensuring the Minister takes that on board. I also endorse and commend the Government, and the Minister in particular, for their commitment to the preservation of hedgehogs. I read in a magazine the other day that badgers are one of the greatest predators of hedgehogs, so perhaps we can protect the hedgehogs by controlling the badgers.

[Theresa Villiers]

As I have said before in this Chamber, there can be few things more important for any Member of Parliament than being able to say, “We played our part in protecting our natural environment for future generations.” This Bill contains one of the most ambitious programmes to conserve and enhance nature ever undertaken in this country. That includes, as we have heard today: setting a demanding 2030 target for species conservation and biodiversity; delivering a nature recovery network and local strategies for nature; creating a whole new income stream for conservation through biodiversity net gain; committing land to nature for the long term using conservation covenants; and cracking down on the use of commodities produced via illegal deforestation.

The Bill is just one element of an even wider conservation package being taken forward by this Conservative Government, including replacing the common agricultural policy with environmental land management schemes, a massive uplift in tree planting and an action plan to protect our peatlands. Peatland areas are an iconic part of our landscape in these islands, and they are our largest terrestrial carbon store, they are a haven for rare wildlife and they provide a crucial record of our past. I warmly welcome the Government’s promise that they will take action to reverse the loss of peatland habitats and restore more of these landscapes to their natural state. I very much hope that will include delivery of the great north bog project.

New clause 16 would require planning permission to be refused if it would have a detrimental impact on nature conservation. I am afraid that much of the good work done under this Bill could be undone if radical changes to the planning system mean that we concrete over our green and pleasant land. Implementing the “Planning for the Future” White Paper would mean a massive centralisation of power through setting development management policies nationally rather than locally. Compliance with design codes could become sufficient to override long-standing principles restricting density, massing and bulk, and local democratic input would be removed altogether in zones designated for growth.

[Bob Seely]

I am so grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. It concerns us that there is potentially a dichotomy between these fantastically good ideas on the environment and the fact that we may undermine ourselves by having the wrong culture behind the new planning Bill.

[Theresa Villiers]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. This is a great Bill and we do not want it undermined by the planning Bill that is to come. My constituency of Chipping Barnet already feels under siege from inappropriate, high-density development, even before these radical planning reforms come into force. If the Government are truly committed to the environmental aspirations of the legislation before us this afternoon, they must think again about their planning Bill, and I urge them to do that.

14:45

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the children of Our Lady of Victories Primary School in Putney have been writing to me about the issue under debate this afternoon. Thirty members of year 6 wrote to me with lovely pictures all about the environment, and most of them said that the most important issue to them was the environment and tackling climate change, so I know the eyes of those children and children across the country are on us this afternoon as we debate this.

I was on the Environment Bill Committee last November. We spent a long time discussing it line by line, with many, many amendments, and this is the third time that I have debated the Bill in the Chamber. I am very glad that it is back. It is not missing in action—it is here today—but I am disappointed because it could have gone further. Despite all our work poring over the Bill and all the evidence submitted by civil society groups, we see a Bill before us that will still fail to tackle the climate and ecological emergency. I am worried that it is just warm words without the back-up of a really strong Office for Environmental Protection, whose remit and powers have been watered down since the Bill was last before the House.

I will focus today particularly on trees. It is welcome that the Government have announced, in the past week, the England trees action plan, but we now need strong wording and a much more ambitious plan in this legislation that will drive the action that is needed across Government, the economy and society. In Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, we love our trees and our green spaces and we know that, across the country, trees are essential for climate reduction, meeting that net zero target, biodiversity and our mental health. However, the UK has one of the lowest areas of tree coverage of any country in Europe. At current rates of planting, it will reach its own target only by 2091, as was pointed out earlier by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). That is 40 years off the target of 2050 and it is an example of where we can have a lot of warm words and keep talking things up, but if we do not have enforceable action by the Office for Environmental Protection, as there should be, we will be coming back here in one year, in five years or in 10 years’ time and we will not see the amount of tree planting that we need.

The action plan was originally promised as a 30-year vision for England’s trees and woods, but it has been published as a shortlist of commitments, with three years of funding. Long-term funding is needed for any real environmental action. Clear timescales are needed to ensure that objectives are met, and clarity on that funding beyond 2024 will be absolutely necessary to give the sector long-term security. I welcome the provision for consultation with local people about tree felling that will happen in their roads, and I think that will give people the power they need to stick up for their local trees, which will be very good. However, Ministry of Defence land should have been included in the Bill. We have power over so much of our swathes of land in this country and the armed forces have environmental targets and actions, so they would be able to put such provision into place. Why is MOD land not included, because we could have lots of tree planting? I share the concerns that other Members have expressed today that this Bill will be undermined by the planning Bill.

Despite the progress over the last week, there is an urgent need for a medium to long-term strategy with clear targets to ensure that we protect, restore and expand our woodlands and trees. New clause 25 sets out what targets these should consist of and I hope it will be supported by the House. It will go some way towards rescuing the Bill, as will the other amendments that I will be supporting today, along with my Labour colleagues, and I urge colleagues to support them to improve the Bill.

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). I have sympathy with a lot of what she says about trees, but it is really important for the House to remember that it is also a matter of restoring marine conservation areas and wetlands. Many alternative habitats offer better ways of capturing carbon than simply planting new trees, so we must focus on the full range of habitats and not just on one aspect, however important trees are—and I will be talking later, if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, about deforestation.

For this section of the debate, I want to talk about why I tabled new clause 4. I welcome the Minister’s comments and I welcome the announcements from the past week. What the Secretary of State said last week is enormously important if we are to start to reverse the decline of species in this country. It is tragic: back in the 1950s, there were something like 30 million hedgehogs in this country. Now, there are estimated to be 1.5 million. That is a catastrophic loss. When I was a child, hedgehogs were around in the garden all the time. I have never, as an adult, seen a hedgehog in my garden or anywhere near it. This is a tragic loss and one we have to work to reverse.

There is a whole range of reasons why that has happened, including habitat loss and the loss of wildlife corridors. It is enormously important, in looking at planning policies, that we focus on how we ensure we maintain wildlife corridors. It is also about the protections available. As the Minister knows, I have had a lively debate with the Department over the weeks. I welcome the approach she has taken. I understand the shortcomings in the existing law, but the reality is that it is nonsense that the hedgehog, which has had a 95% decline in its numbers, is not protected, whereas species that are much less in danger and whose numbers are recovering are protected.

The existing law protects primarily against malicious action by human beings, but of course not all species that are endangered have faced malicious action from human beings. A hedgehog does not face that, particularly, but some other animals on the list, such as the lagoon sandworm, valuable though it may be, is not in my view facing direct malicious action from human beings either. It faces threats to its habitat, and so do hedgehogs. We have a situation today whereby if a developer is going to clear a bit of land for development, he or she has to do exhaustive work to establish if newts are present. Much as we love the great crested newt, which is a fine species, it is not actually endangered in this country. We have laws about it in this country because it is endangered elsewhere in the European Union—happily not in the United Kingdom—but there is no obligation to see if other species such as the hedgehog are present. Developers can just bulldoze a hedgerow without checking if there are hedgehogs asleep in it.

I would like to see a holistic approach to any new development, where it is necessary to do a broader assessment of the presence of species and take action accordingly to protect them, and not have a focus on one individual animal as opposed to another. We have too many species that have declined in numbers. We should be protecting them all. Of course, we will need to develop in the future to ensure we have homes available for people in this country, but that needs to be done in a careful way: protecting wildlife corridors, protecting numbers, and ensuring that the steps we take maximise the potential to retain, restore or develop habitats of our species.

I welcome very much what the Minister has said today about hedgehogs. I think everyone in this House will welcome any measures we can take to protect them. I pay particular tribute to the former MP for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, Oliver Colvile, who was the first champion of hedgehogs in this House. I hope we will all be hedgehog champions going forward. We shall be holding the Minister’s feet to the fire to make sure her Department delivers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We should be going by video link to Mike Amesbury, but we shall come back to him.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

I can boldly say that Stroud is not only the best place to live according to a national newspaper, but it is the most environmentally focused constituency in the country. The letters I receive from young people are frequently about the environment. Importantly, while politics and the news are often focused on carbon targets, children lobby me about biodiversity and species. They are smart and we must listen to them. I look at my own baby daughter’s enthusiasm for small creatures and nature, and I wonder what will be left by the time she is growing up.

Nature is in decline; this is an issue globally. Despite the protections being put in place in the Bill, there is a stark decline in the UK too, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) set out in relation to hedgehogs. I campaigned with colleagues in the Conservative Environment Network to set a target in the Bill to halt species decline, as it matters to my constituents and my family. The Secretary of State listened, and the Bill will now include a legally binding target for species abundance by 2013. This is a genuinely world-leading measure that shows real commitment to our future generations, as it puts nature firmly as a priority across Government. It could be the net zero equivalent for nature, and we need that. As I know from knocking on thousands of doors over the years that even in places such as Gloucestershire there is still a lot to do to get people to understand what is needed to help the environment. Families are busy and stretched, and sometimes do not think there is anything they can do to make change in their daily lives. I therefore applaud the fact that in such a wide-reaching Bill there is a determination to include a local effort.

In Gloucestershire our Local Nature Partnership is already well advanced. I give credit to the board led by Doug and Matt. The LNP has developed a national exemplar approach to nature capital mapping, which will enable us locally to measure performance in future and identify opportunities for environmental investment locally. We have discovered that Stroud has a tree coverage of 11% and we want to get to a target of 20%. This is all alongside an LNP commitment to create scale-led woodland and to extensive tree planting to sequester carbon while providing many other benefits for wildlife and our wellbeing. I also give credit to groups such as Transition Stroud and our fantastic climate action nature groups throughout the district. I have spoken to the Minister before about these community groups, who are dedicated to action on climate change. These local teams will soon have legislation that is as ambitious for the planet as they are.

I cannot be on my feet without talking about my expert conservation friends at Slimbridge Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust. I am supporting them in their proposals to create 100,000 hectares of wetland to address the climate, nature and wellbeing crisis. A blue recovery would achieve habitat creation to assist the Government’s goals in this Bill and also in the 25-year environment plan. Of course, 2020 was a tough year, but in the WWT we still saw some species bred for the first time on-site, including kingfishers and a number of butterflies such as the brown hairstreak. WWT received £1.6 million from the Government’s green recovery challenge fund to help safeguard the south-west Somerset coast against the effects of climate change, and we are restoring 130 hectares of habitat for wildlife. I should also mention that the skilled Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust received £250,000 to rebuild landscapes for nature’s recovery in our beautiful county.

I am concerned that we need more information to set out how our biodiversity targets are being met. We need to make sure that farms are being supported to help their work on their land. I also share colleagues’ concerns about the planning issues and whether that will undermine efforts. However, I thank the Minister and the Government for this Bill. I do think it is positive and I encourage everybody to get behind this work.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

Obviously my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) will be supporting this Bill. It does not go as far or as fast as perhaps we would all wish, but it is what is before us, and given the scale, nature and urgency of the crisis we are facing, it deserves our support.

Even though this Bill is primarily English and Welsh, we will be supporting it, and there are two good reasons for that. First, it is a global issue that this Bill and indeed other aspects of policy are seeking to address. Climate change and the actions that are damaging our biodiversity everywhere across the planet transcend all national borders and all national boundaries. It may be tragic and sadly ironic that many who have contributed the least will suffer the worst, but the fact is that all of us will be harmed and all of us are required to act. Secondly, there are issues that Scotland can learn from. Although a legislative consent motion has been given by the Scottish Government to move on some matters, there are issues that the Scottish Government themselves could do with picking up on, and I will refer to those if I have time.

We support the amendments, particularly amendments 26, 27, 36 and 37, because we have to seek to expose those who are taking actions to fund and fuel this crisis, especially those who are based domestically. We are a global village. What we do in this country does affect other places. Our carbon footprint is reducing, although we have to do much, much more. We can never forget that it was in this country that industrialisation took off and that it contributed greatly to the problems we face today. That is why there is a great deal of legitimacy in the calls from the undeveloped or developing world for this country and other developed nations to go further and faster, rather than simply looking at them.

15:00

I listened to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) speaking about his amendments, which I support. He rightly narrated the dangers and challenges in Brazil, with the effects of deforestation in the Amazon basin. We need to act, because the points he made were quite correct. This is not simply about rogue ranchers in the Amazon rainforest; nor is it simply about failures of action or complicit actions by leaders such as Bolsonaro; nor, even more whimsically, is it due to the love of young people—or indeed all people—in this country and the USA for cheap burgers. It is a structural problem. It is about funding and finance for those who carry it out. It is not being done by indigenous people in the Amazon rainforest, nor is it being done by individuals in isolation. It is not random, isolated or individual in the main; it is planned, co-ordinated and funded, and we in this country are complicit in that. That is why we need to act. We need to make sure that we have the legislative powers not simply to monitor and scrutinise, but, more important, to take action against this. Only in that way will we address the issues the hon. Member correctly raised. This is about us playing our part here to support theirs there.

Scotland equally has lessons to learn. Although the rhetoric has been good, and I fully support it, and although targets have been set, and they are to be welcomed, we must have constructive action too. Reference has been made to other parts of the UK, beyond England and Wales, planting more trees. That is correct, but equally it should not simply be a cash crop for wealthy landowners, as it was decades ago—a way for people to reduce their supertax or higher rates liability. We have to take action to ensure that we have not only targets, but the powers to make them enforceable. As well as protecting the “third” and developing world, as have to take powers here in Scotland to make sure that we play our part.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The time limit is now reduced to three minutes. I call Flick Drummond.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I know the Bill is welcomed by many people in Meon Valley. It will help to secure the health of our environment and biodiversity. I am in touch with local organisations such as Hampshire CPRE and Winchester Action on Climate Change, as well as our farmers, local councils and community groups, who have all sent in their views to me as the Bill has evolved. There is support for our work across society. It is an important part of levelling up that contributes to the future of us all. The action on peatlands taken under the Bill will protect about 10% of our land area and is very welcome, as is our commitment to tree planting.

In Meon Valley, the health of our chalk down land is of primary importance to agriculture and the environment. While we are encouraging farmers to plant more trees and hedges, it is important—especially for small farmers—that we support the productivity and health of pasture land through soil improvement and restoration. The Bill sets the framework for the development and introduction of targets, and I am pleased to see the environmental improvement plan mentions soil health and makes a commitment to achieve sustainable soil management by 2030. As I mentioned in a previous debate, 80% of our soil is dead, so I am particularly interested in how we can promote soil health, which is vital to farm productivity and nature recovery generally. We have cut right back on pollutants we put into the ground, but there remains more we can do to promote healthy soil.

We must ensure that there is a plan for all five of the identified soil types to promote better health and recovery. Pasture land is a key component of this and is vital to farmers across Meon Valley, with many finding that soil can be regenerated through improved carbon capture, water infiltration, soil fertility and nutrient cycling. They see an increase in biodiversity, and we need to support them. In addition, healthier pasture lands lead to lower fertiliser and pesticide use, which can in turn benefit the health of our rivers.

I welcome the clauses on water abstraction from rivers. I have two chalk stream rivers in my constituency: the River Meon and the start of the River Itchen. Chalk streams across the country are already in a shocking state of health. The WWF report says that only 12 out of England’s 224 chalk streams are protected, and of those, only 15% are classed as adequately protected and meeting conservation objectives. I am pleased that both rivers in my constituency are among the few protected, but better management of pasture land will reduce the need for pesticides and fertilisers that run off to pollute rivers. Through working alongside farmers and ensuring pasture land and soil health are valued alongside woodland and peatland, we can improve the health of our rivers and our environment. There is a lot to welcome in this Bill, and I know that it is just the start to making our environment better for everyone.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]]

My constituency is home to beautiful countryside and woodlands, with picturesque walks that even Downing Street advisers and Select Committee witnesses have been known to enjoy. The bluebells in Houghall woods are particularly beautiful in April.

Whether it is water quality, habitat conservation or air quality, I receive hundreds of emails from constituents on environmental issues. In Durham, we are proud of the natural beauty of our county. We want to protect and cherish it. Out of all the emails I have received on the Environment Bill, every single one without fail argues that it simply does not go far enough. So far, this Bill is largely full of half-measures and token gestures. Like me, my constituents cannot understand why the Government opposed our amendments on improving air quality and limiting the use of bee-killing pesticides when the Bill was last debated. No doubt we will be similarly frustrated if the Government vote down our common-sense amendments today.

The Government need to face the reality of our current situation. We are in a climate and ecological emergency, the effects of which are already being seen in the UK and across the world. We need firm and decisive action. Whether it is the social and economic recovery from the covid-19 pandemic or agricultural regulations, every decision the Government make should consider the environmental impact and how we can best restore this planet.

It is widely accepted that, when it comes to tackling the climate emergency, we cannot go far enough or fast enough, yet everything the Government do lacks the seriousness and urgency that the situation demands. The WWF has said that

“the Bill does not achieve what has been promised: gold standard legislation, showing global leadership”.

Of course, we need an environmental Bill, but we need one that has teeth.

There is nothing in the Bill to ban fracking. The world’s oceans are being disregarded while environmental protections under the European Union framework have been replaced with flexible targets that could weaken the environmental standards we have been so proud of for so long. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Government are avoiding committing to iron-clad environmental protections in case they need to sell out British standards in future trade deals.

To finish, I cannot help but agree with my constituents’ belief that the Bill remains a missed opportunity. As the newest supporter of the climate and ecological emergency Bill, I urge the Government to introduce legislation that treats the climate emergency with the gravity it requires and to launch a green industrial revolution that places the environment at the heart of our economy and society.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) [V]]

The climate and ecological crises are the gravest threats we face, and no one, in no part of their lives or those of their children, is immune from the challenges we face due to climate. Despite being decades in the making, we no longer have decades to solve or tackle the challenges ahead of us.

The 2020s must be the decade for decisive and bold action. For the UK to be a global climate leader, the steps we take here at home must align with climate commitments overseas and vice versa. We must work collaboratively with our international partners and support developing nations. There must be mutual reinforcing and climate must be a thread that weaves through all parts of government. If done correctly, this can act as a catalyst for real advancement in health, wellbeing, security and prosperity at home and overseas. It can both free us and equip us with the tools we need now and in the future to live better and healthier lives.

However, in the year when the UK hosts both the G7 and COP26, we are far from reaching the necessary action we need. We are failing to meet 17 out of 20 UN biodiversity targets. We are one of the most depleted countries in the world. Wildlife in Britain has been seriously threatened over the past decade. Half our species are in decline and one in seven native British species are at risk of extinction. We have seen flooding increase in recent years, up by more than a quarter across the UK compared with previous decades. We know that, like health, the impact of climate breakdown is disproportionately felt by those who have contributed to it the least, but rather than put us on a path to net zero by 2050 and build the solutions we need now to protect the environment, delay, indecision, short-termism, arrogance and recklessness are all on display from this Government. This will aggravate and deepen the challenges, which will impact future generations.

This is the fourth time I have spoken on the Environment Bill. The purpose is to debate and improve, not to debate and stonewall. We need—and future generations deserve—a piece of legislation that is up to scratch to meet our objectives and that acts as a launch pad for reforms and progress for the era that must come next, so that we can get the job done, not only to protect but to strengthen and advance our environment.

In Wales, we see Labour showing how it is done, with a Welsh Government forestry industrial recovery scheme, an effective ban on fracking and the restoration of our peat bogs with a national peatlands action programme. We need bigger, bolder action to address this climate and ecological emergency right now.

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

The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), is a diligent and well-respected Member of Parliament, and we have worked together on many issues in the past. Indeed, we have worked so well together that I have often felt he might be more comfortable on this side of the House. However, earlier today, he described the Bill as a “meh” Bill. I have been going through the Bill, and I would like to draw all Members’ attention to what this “meh” Bill actually delivers.

The Bill delivers targets for air quality, biodiversity, water, waste reduction and resource efficiency. It introduces an environmental improvement plan. It introduces environmental principles embedded in our domestic policy making. It creates an Office for Environmental Protection. It ensures that, under all new Bills containing environmental law, statements must be laid before Parliament on how they will maintain environmental standards. It ensures that the Government must conduct a review every two years of significant and effective international environmental legislation to ensure that we are leading the way internationally on the environment. It extends producer responsibility to make producers pay 100% of the cost of disposable products. It creates powers to introduce new resource efficiency standards for products to ensure better durability and recyclability. And I could go on, and on.

This is not a “meh” Bill. This is a transformative, world-leading, exciting, ambitious Bill that is delivering not just for the British people but on our duty to future generations and indeed, this planet. I represent a Scottish constituency, and the only thing I regret is that quite a lot of the provisions in the Bill will not affect my constituents. I can only hope that the Scottish Government go as far and as fast as this Government are proposing to do for the rest of the United Kingdom.

There is one area of the Bill that I think stands out above all others, and that is the introduction of powers allowing the Government to set out mandatory requirements on larger businesses that use agricultural commodities associated with wide-scale deforestation. Deforestation is one of the biggest threats to the health of this planet. Right now, one fifth of the Amazon rainforest is emitting more carbon dioxide than it absorbs. That is a terrifying statistic: 20% of that major rainforest, the lungs of the planet, is emitting more carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. Our proposals to ensure that we sustainably source all products that might be used in agriculture are essential in delivering on our commitment to cut down on illegal deforestation, which accounts for 95% of deforestation in the Amazon and other rainforests around the world.

This is a great Bill, and I know that, deep in his heart, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport welcomes it strongly.

15:15

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I shall be seeking to press my amendment 29 to a vote.

I very much welcome this Environment Bill and many of the provisions that it makes. All over the country, we are suffering from severe environmental decline and degradation, and the results are visible in every community. From the damage to our chalk streams to the decline in our native wildlife species, the evidence of the impact of modern life on our natural environment is irrefutable. Nobody can fail to understand the implications of this decline.

A year or so ago, I attended a fascinating talk by the Kingston Beekeepers Association, which really enhanced my understanding of the essential role that bees play in maintaining the healthy plant life on which our human species depends, yet bees are among the species most threatened by modern industry, agriculture and housing development.

It is clear to everyone that much more needs to be done to strengthen powers at national and local level to prioritise the environment at every level of our decision making. As the decisions that have the most impact on our environment are made by our local authorities, especially around planning, it is vital that we enhance the powers that local government has to protect our environment.

I welcome the requirement in the Bill for every local authority to prepare a local nature recovery strategy to address the specific challenges in their own local environments. That will help to co-ordinate all local policy and decision making with an environmental impact by identifying and addressing the specific biodiversity challenges of individual areas. However, the Bill only requires local authorities to “have regard to” the LNRS. My amendment seeks to ensure that all local authorities must take the local nature recovery strategy into account when making decisions about planning or land use, as well as spending decisions.

We have seen successful trials of local nature recovery strategies in Buckinghamshire and other places. Buckinghamshire, in particular, is the site of many areas of vitally important woodland and chalk streams. We know that local people are deeply concerned about the degradation of those valuable natural assets and support the development of strategies that can combat environmental decline. It is essential that local authorities have the tools and powers that they need to be able to protect their communities.

I was fortunate enough to be able to visit Ham House, a National Trust owned property in my constituency, last Friday. The staff there talked me through the sustainable management of their grounds, including the adaptations that they have had to make to deal with climate change. The National Trust, as part of Greener UK, a coalition of environmental charities, supports my amendment. Like me, it recognises that the value of LNRSs can be realised only if they are properly applied to all aspects of decision making.

This Government have a record of delaying decisive action in the face of a looming crisis. They have an opportunity with this Environment Bill to learn from their past mistakes and pursue a course of action that is equal to the size of the challenge. None the less, the Bill needs to be strengthened by my amendment if it is to make the difference that we need to see.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).

The events of the past 12 months in particular have shown us the advantages of getting out and exploring nature on our doorstep. It is crucial, as we build back greener from the pandemic, that we take advantage of this opportunity to protect those green spaces and reflect on the world that we want to see for our children and their children.

I was very proud that this Government was elected on the strongest ever manifesto for the environment, and this Bill is critical to implementing that commitment. Central to this legislation is a commitment to leave the environment in a better state than when we found it. This is a world-leading measure that could be the net zero equivalent for nature. It is critical in our action to address biodiversity decline.

I am particularly pleased to see the commitment to tree planting in the Bill. I also welcome the introduction of local nature recovery strategies, which will allow us to map local assets and identify areas suitable for recovery.

Our changing climate is becoming associated with more extreme weather, higher risks of drought and an increase in flooding, which affected so many of the homes in my constituency in Sankey Bridges, in Heatley, and in Dallam and Bewsey during Storm Christoph in January.  The Minister was incredibly supportive and helpful during that time. Many local residents, though, are still not back in their homes, and are unlikely to be so anytime soon. Will my hon. Friend look at what more she could do to support those residents and Warrington Borough Council? I am very pleased that the Bill introduces additional requirements on water companies, enabling more resilient solutions.

Many of the environmental issues that we face have distinct local elements, and responding to challenges at a local level, in Warrington, not only allows for bespoke and more appropriate responses, but drives the potential for innovation. I want to mention air quality briefly. Warrington has historically had some of the worst air quality in the north-west of England, because of its location surrounded by motorways with high levels of congestion, and historically because of the location of a coal-fired power station at Fiddler’s Ferry. Now that has closed, and the air quality is already improving. My question to the Minister is, how can we leverage the Government’s nature target and commitment to improve air quality, not only in Warrington but across the UK, and given our presidency of COP, set out an ambition for a global improvement too? Finally, I welcome the work being undertaken by the Cheshire Wildlife Trust to protect some of our most vulnerable habitats locally, particularly through its peat free campaign.

The Bill will manage the impact of human activity on the environment. It creates a more sustainable and resilient economy and, critically, it engages our constituents and local government to improve environmental outcomes. I very much look forward to supporting it.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I want to speak to new clause 25, amendment 46 and amendment 22, which would cement in legislation forward-looking protections for trees, deforestation, species conservation and biodiversity gain.

We are in a climate and ecological emergency. Many of my Luton South constituents have contacted me deeply concerned about nature and biodiversity in the UK and across the world. The Bill was an opportunity to embed ambitious environmental protections in law and to kick-start a nature recovery ahead of COP26 and the convention on biological diversity, COP15.

The state of nature is very alarming. Wildlife in Britain is in freefall, with 44% of species in decline over the last 10 years. One in seven native British species are now at risk of extinction. UK tree planting targets were missed by over 50% in 2019-20, and across the world the World Wide Fund for Nature’s “Living Planet Report 2020” found that there had been an average 68% decline in the populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish since 1970.

So instead of a radical plan that shows global leadership in addressing the climate and nature crisis, the Government’s Bill dramatically falls short of what is needed. As the Environmental Audit Committee stated, the draft Bill

“is a missed opportunity for taking a holistic approach to environment and climate change, placing them at the heart of Government policy.”

I believe that the Government are resisting concrete, ambitious protections, so that our environment can be used as a bargaining chip that would undercut Britain’s environmental standards.

I hope that the Government will support the Opposition’s amendments that seek to enhance the protections in the Bill. We need the Government to publish a tree strategy for England, coupled with clear targets that would drastically increase woodland coverage, to protect and maintain new and restored existing woodlands. New clause 25 would ensure that the Government’s tree strategy was transparent about the protection, restoration and expansion of trees and woodland. As the planting of trees is a local issue as much as a global issue, will the Minister commit to ring-fencing a significant proportion of tree-planting grants of the £640 million Nature for Climate fund for local authorities, so that they can plant trees at scale and play their part in tackling the global crisis?

We also need the species conservation strategies to contribute to nature’s recovery. Amendment 46 would help deliver that, and could ensure that effective strategies are put in place to restore bees and other pollinator species and protect them from harmful pesticides. Amendment 22 would require the Government to commit to maintaining habitats that are secured under biodiversity gain in perpetuity, rather than the 30 years currently specified in the Bill. These amendments would embed sustained, forward-looking action in law to begin to reverse species decline and loss of species, and set nature on a path to recovery.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s closing remarks.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a real privilege to once again speak in this place to express my support for the Environment Bill. It was fantastic to have the opportunity to serve on the Bill Committee and to see all the hard work that has gone into this piece of legislation. I repeat my for all the work that she has done in bringing forward this Bill.

All of us in this House will agree that the environment is precious, and I care deeply about protecting and enhancing it for future generations. As the Minister will be well aware from my interactions with her, from lobbying to stop the development of the Aire valley incinerator to the recent granting of bathing water status on the River Wharfe in my constituency, I and many of my constituents across Keighley and Ilkley care deeply about enhancing our environment. As I deliver this speech, two of my constituents, Patrick Godden and Jack Hanson, are completing a walk from Ilkley to Westminster to raise awareness and funds for the Ilkley clean river campaign, a group that has campaigned hard to improve water quality in the River Wharfe. Measures in the Bill such as the statutory duty on water companies to develop sewage management plans and the changes to the water companies licensing process will ensure that the River Wharfe and many other rivers up and down the country have better water quality and biodiversity and enhanced aquatic ecosystems, and I wholly wholeheartedly approve of that.

I am delighted that this Government are following other countries in introducing conservation covenants. The Government have acknowledged the important role landowners can play in conservation efforts. The current system makes it difficult for legal obligations on environmental protection to stay in place once land is sold or passed on, and conservation covenants will help. These long-term commitments will ensure positive opportunities for conservation are not missed, and the conservation covenants will introduce obligations to improve conservation as long as public good will is there and will help restore the natural qualities of our land.

There are other great measures in this Bill, such as local nature recovery strategies; the Government have recognised that local nature recovery must start at the local level, and that will make a huge difference locally. I would briefly like to mention my support for amendment 41 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), a probing amendment which seeks to include a provision for local planning authorities to be able to take unlawful tree felling and lack of compliance with restocking and enforcement orders by landowners into account when considering planning obligations.

We have an obligation to ensure that the next generation inherits a healthier planet and the Environment Bill goes a long way to achieving that.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]]

I welcome the opportunity to speak once again on this important piece of legislation and am thankful to the many constituents who have urged me to support the strongest possible protections for our natural world, as well as Cheshire Wildlife Trust, which is such a powerful and passionate advocate for nature across the Wirral and Cheshire.

The UK is in the midst of an intense biodiversity crisis. In just 50 years, 41% of all species have declined, with 15% brought to the brink of extinction. Most worryingly of all, bees, which play such an important role by pollinating 70% of all the crops we eat, are under existential threat; since 1900, 13 species have been lost with another 35 at risk.

Time and again the Prime Minister has promised bold and decisive action to tackle the existential threat of biodiversity loss and ecological crisis, but, as is so often the case with this Government, the reality fails to match the rhetoric: not only does this Bill fail to bring forward the measures that are badly needed to halt ecological collapse, but it does not even maintain the comprehensive environmental protections that we had as a member of the European Union. I am therefore very grateful to the hon. Members who have tabled important amendments to this Bill, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones).

I was especially glad to add my name to new clause 25, which would commit the Government to publishing a national tree strategy for England. England is one of the least wooded countries in the western world, with just 13% of all land covered by woodland compared with an average of 44% in mainland Europe. Increasing woodland has a vital role to play in tackling climate breakdown and promoting biodiversity, but fewer than 50% of the annual tree planting targets were met in 2020. That is simply not good enough.

I also urge Members to join me in supporting new clause 24, which would enshrine vital protections for our peatlands into law and introduce a comprehensive ban on the burning of heather on all upland peat. Peatland plays a vital role not only in promoting biodiversity but also as a natural carbon sink, yet the Government have failed to safeguard this precious natural resource. Some 80% of the UK’s 3 million hectares of peatland are chronically damaged, with around 60% enjoying no protection whatsoever.

Warm words simply are not good enough; today’s votes provide us with an opportunity to prove we say what we mean in tackling the biodiversity crisis, so I call on the Government to put their money where their mouth is and join me in supporting these and many other amendments tabled today.

15:30

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

This is a landmark Bill, and I am hugely proud to support it. We quite rightly talk a great deal about climate change, net zero and the world-leading targets we are setting, but specifically what are we doing to protect nature and biodiversity? It is a headline we hear less about, and it needs to sit alongside our climate change agenda, because our duty to protect habitats and species is as important as our need to decarbonise. That is why I am delighted to back Government new clauses 21 and 22. Restoring nature and committing to a legally binding target on species abundance by 2030 must be at the forefront of our agenda. This builds on our commitment at the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature in September 2020, where we were one of the leading nations to commit to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030.

Through our recent Environmental Audit Committee work, it was shocking to learn that only 14% of our rivers are considered to be in good ecological condition. What must we be doing to our biodiversity in the protection of nature? In a developed country in the 21st century, we must do better, and now we will. We have to put a stop to 50 years of decline in nature’s rich habitats and pay heed to the Dasgupta review.

For instance, I am delighted to see that biodiversity net gain is to become a key component of the Town and Country Planning Act. This is very important in my constituency, and I call on my local council, North Norfolk District Council, to get ahead of the game. It should be employing ecologists on its planning team to lead in early design and planning, to ensure that biodiversity and nature recovery are incorporated in the heart of local planning and needs. As well as local and domestic issues, we have to lead on the world stage. The new clauses will ensure just that by aligning the commitments and international biodiversity targets that are to be negotiated in China later this year.

We know that it is people who have contributed to the destruction of nature, and it is people who will put it back together again. Nowhere is there a finer example of conservation in my constituency than the sterling work of the North Walsham and Dilham Canal Trust volunteers and the Old Canal Company. I recently visited them to see their restoration work and improvement of nature and biodiversity on the waterways that they have restored. It was quite breathtaking. It shows that these new clauses, if followed, will make a real difference to nature.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We cannot continue to take nature for granted. This pandemic has highlighted the importance of nature for our physical and mental wellbeing. It has also exposed the inequalities that exist, as so many families do not have close and easy access to open green space. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world: 14 of 24 biodiversity indicators show long-term decline; 41 of the UK’s species have declined, with 15 at risk of extinction; and 0% of England’s waters are now classed as in good health, compared with 16% in 2016.

The Government have failed on nearly all the UK’s commitments on nature made in 2010. They have failed on the health of our rivers, lakes and streams. We must take every opportunity to address the UK’s ecological crisis without delay. We need a strategy for doubling nature. The Environment Bill is an opportunity to do just that, but it needs to be much stronger. As it stands, the duty to use local nature recovery strategies is much too weak. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to support amendment 29, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). This amendment would give teeth to the local nature recovery strategies, because it ensures that biodiversity will be embedded in all public authority decision making. Like climate action, biodiversity gains begin at home. Liberal Democrat councils across the country are fighting to do just that.

There are very simple things that can help. In Bath and North East Somerset, for example, we have introduced a strategy whereby we just do not mow grass verges in order to allow flowers and blooms to spread. Local authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their communities and landscapes, and we must give them the powers and resources they need to help the UK to tackle its nature emergency.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank all hon. Members who have tabled amendments. However, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), in his tirade at the beginning seemed totally unaware of just how many measures this Bill will introduce to look after and protect our environment, the countryside and nature. It truly is a landmark Bill. I will give him some quotes from environmental non-governmental organisations just last week: Greener UK said this was a “watershed moment for nature”; the RSPB applauded us for taking this “ambitious step”; and Countryside Link called this

“a tremendously important milestone toward world-leading environmental law”.

I think the shadow Secretary of State has been under a stone like some rare species. I would like to drag him out into the light so that he is able to appreciate what we are doing, like so many colleagues here today who have all grasped it, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), for Warrington South (Andy Carter), for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore).

I do not have much time, but I am going to touch on as many points raised in this debate as I can. I ask Members please to come and see me if I have not managed to address their points. I turn first to amendment 22, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). Setting a minimum duration in law would deter developers and other landowners from offering land for habitats. Furthermore, this amendment would risk creating permanent obligations to maintain particular types of habitat that may not be resilient to future ecological or climate changes.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) for applauding our nature target, and totally agree that international action is imperative so that we show that we are leading the way, particularly with the CBD.

I turn to new clause 16. I can reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) that the Environment Bill lays the foundations for environmental protection that will be supported by the Planning Bill. Our planning for the future White Paper reiterates our strong commitment to biodiversity net gain. I also reassure her that in line with our manifesto commitment, existing policy for greenbelt protection will remain.

Amendment 29 would risk limiting the decision-making direction of public authorities with regard to local nature recovery strategies. It would be unreasonable for national bodies such as Network Rail or Highways England to be required to comply with many strategies. In fact, this amendment could, perversely, result in lower environmental ambition.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) rightly brings the issue of illegal tree felling into this debate through amendment 41. The Bill does provide a deterrent to the illegal felling of trees by introducing unlimited fines and making tree restocking orders a local land charge. It will close a loophole raised by so many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely).

I turn to the tree strategy in particular and new clause 25. I am pleased to report to the House, as I have already mentioned a number of times, that we launched our trees action plan just last week, and that renders this new clause completely unnecessary.

Let us turn now to hedgehogs, of course. I keenly support the intention of new clause 4, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). Although I cannot accept the amendment, I hope that he is reassured by the commitments I made earlier. I fully reiterate his comments about the importance of habitats. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) also rightly raised the issue of hedgehogs.

New clause 2 would significantly reduce existing protections and remove the duty on decision makers to reject plans or projects that could harm protected sites.

I must touch on the due diligence clause mentioned by so many people, including the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). The Environment Bill will benefit nature not just abroad, but internationally.

On amendments 26 and 27, I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—happy birthday, by the way—that deforestation must be tackled if we are to achieve our climate and biodiversity targets, and legality is at the heart of our requirements.

In conclusion, new clauses 21 and 22 introduce powers that will restore protected sites to good condition and they are critical for the Government. This Government are clear about their commitments on the environment, and I hope I have been able to assuage the concerns of all Members who have tabled amendments today.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 21 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

15:40

Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day and 26 January).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 22

Habitats Regulations: power to amend Part 6

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012) (the “Habitats Regulations”) (assessment of plans and projects) as they apply in relation to England.

(2) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the particular importance of furthering the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.

(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section only if satisfied that the regulations do not reduce the level of environmental protection provided by the Habitats Regulations.

(4) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (3).

(5) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(6) In this section “England” has the same meaning as in section (Habitats Regulations: power to amend general duties).

(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.” —(Rebecca Pow.)

This new clause confers power to amend Part 6 of the Habitats Regulations.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

Duty to prepare a Tree Strategy for England

‘(1) The Government must prepare a Tree Strategy for England as set out in subsections (2), (3) and (4).

(2) The strategy must set out the Government’s vision, objectives, priorities and policies for trees in England including individual trees, woodland and forestry, and set out other matters with respect to the promotion of sustainable management of trees in these contexts.

(3) The Tree Strategy for England must include the Government’s targets and interim targets with respect to—

(a) the percentage of England under tree cover;

(b) hectares of new native woodland creation achieved by tree planting;

(c) hectares of new native woodland creation achieved by natural regeneration;

(d) the percentage of native woodland in favourable ecological condition;

(e) hectares of Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS) undergoing restoration;

(f) the condition of the England’s Long Established Woodlands; and

(g) hectares of Long Established Woodlands undergoing restoration.

(4) The Tree Strategy for England must set out—

(a) locations of additional planting of 30,000 hectares of woodland in the UK each year, as set out in the England Trees Action Plan 2021-2024;

(b) a plan for the maintenance of the trees and woodlands planted under the England Trees Action Plan 2021-2024; and

(c) which authorities or individuals are responsible for the maintenance of the trees and woodlands planted under the England Trees Action Plan 2021-2024.

(5) The Government must publish—

(a) an annual statement on progress against the Tree Strategy for England; and

(b) any revisions of the Tree Strategy which may be necessary.

(6) The Government must publish a revised Tree Strategy for England within the period of 10 years beginning with the day on which the strategy or its most recent revision was published.” —(Ruth Jones.)

The aim of this new clause is to ensure that the Government prepares a tree strategy for England. It will ensure that the Government has to produce targets for the protection, restoration and expansion of trees and woodland in England.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

15:43

Division 15

Ayes: 217

---

Labour: 193
Liberal Democrat: 11
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Independent: 2
Alba Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 352

---

Conservative: 352

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Clause 95

General duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity

Amendment proposed: 29, page 97, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

‘(5) After subsection (2) insert—

(2A) The authority must act in accordance with any relevant local nature recovery strategy in the exercise of relevant functions, including—

(a) land use planning and planning decisions;

(b) spending decisions, including land management payments;

(c) delivery of biodiversity gain; and

(d) any other activities undertaken in complying with subsections (1) and (1A).””—(Sarah Olney.)

This amendment would require public authorities to exercise relevant functions in accordance with Local Nature Recovery Strategies. This would ensure that decisions that affect the natural environment such as planning decisions, net gain habitat enhancements and targeted investment in environmental land management are informed by the Strategies.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

15:53

Division 16

Ayes: 210

---

Labour: 195
Liberal Democrat: 9
Independent: 2
Alba Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 359

---

Conservative: 352
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates. 

New Clause 12

Well consents for hydraulic fracturing: cessation of issue and termination

“(1) No well consent which permits associated hydraulic fracturing may be issued by the Oil and Gas Authority (‘OGA’).

(2) Sections 4A and 4B of the Petroleum Act 1998 (as inserted by section 50 of the Infrastructure Act 2015), are repealed.

(3) Any well consent which has been issued by the OGA which—

(a) permits associated hydraulic fracturing, and

(b) is effective on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent shall cease to be valid three months after this Act receives Royal Assent.

(4) In this section—

‘associated hydraulic fracturing’ means hydraulic fracturing of shale or strata encased in shale which—

(a) is carried out in connection with the use of the relevant well to search or bore for or get petroleum, and

(b) involves, or is expected to involve, the injection of—

(i) more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at each stage, or expected stage, of the hydraulic fracturing, or

(ii) more than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid in total, or

(iii) acid intended to dissolve rock;

and ‘well consent’ means a consent in writing of the OGA to the commencement of drilling of a well.”—(Ruth Jones.)

This new clause would prevent the Oil and Gas Authority from being able to provide licences for hydraulic fracturing, exploration or acidification, and would revoke current licences after a brief period to wind down activity.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 19—Labelling scheme for the environmental sustainability of food—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a scheme requiring food manufacturers to label foods offered for sale in the United Kingdom to indicate the environmental sustainability of their origins.

(2) That scheme must make provision for a kitemark indicating the environmentally sustainable origins of a food.

(3) The kitemark may be applied to:—

(a) raw food commodities,

(b) processed food products, and

(c) the ingredients of processed food products.

(4) The definition of ‘environmentally sustainable origins’ under the scheme must incorporate an assessment of whether the agricultural or manufacturing processes involved in the production of a food—

(a) protect the habitats of species listed internationally as endangered,

(b) avoid biodiversity loss,

(c) avoid deforestation, and

(d) avoid significant increases in net carbon emissions.

(5) The scheme may make provision for—

(a) enforcement, and

(b) civil sanctions in relation to labelling and use of the kitemark.

(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.

(7) Before making regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Scottish Ministers,

(b) the Welsh Ministers, and

(c) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.

(8) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing the proposed scheme before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”

New clause 24—Prohibition on burning of peat in upland areas—

“(1) A person must not burn specified vegetation on land in England which is within an upland area on peat.

(2) In this section—

‘specified vegetation’ means heather, rough grass, bracken, gorse or vaccinium, and

‘upland area’ means all the land shown coloured pink on the map marked as ‘Map of Upland Area in England’ held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs but does not include the land coloured pink in the Isles of Scilly(a).”

The new clause extends the coverage of the peat burning ban from the 142,000 ha of upland peat currently covered to the full 355,000 ha of upland peat in England.

New clause 28—Labelling scheme for the informed purchase of environmentally sustainable food—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a scheme requiring food manufacturers to label foods offered for sale in the United Kingdom to indicate the environmental sustainability of their origins.

(2) The scheme in subsection (1) must make provision for a kitemark indicating the environmentally sustainable origins of a food.

(3) The kitemark may be applied to—

(a) raw food commodities,

(b) processed food products, and

(c) the ingredients of processed food products.

(4) Food labelling under the scheme must include a declaration about food miles, which is defined as the distance travelled from the country, or in the case of domestically produced food the region, of origin.

(5) The declaration in subsection (4) must be given in words and numbers, but may also be presented using graphical forms or symbols provided that the graphical forms or symbols meet the following requirements—

(a) they are based on scientifically valid consumer research and do not mislead the consumer as referred to in Article 7 of the retained Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council as amended in the Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019;

(b) their development is the result of consultation with a wide range of stakeholder groups;

(c) they aim to facilitate consumer understanding of the contribution or importance of the environmental impact of the food;

(d) they are supported by scientifically valid evidence showing that such forms of presentation are understood by the average consumer;

(e) they are objective and non-discriminatory; and

(f) their application does not create obstacles to the free movement of goods.

(6) The scheme may recommend to food business operators the use of one or more additional forms of presentation of the environmental indications that they consider as best fulfilling the requirements laid down in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (5).

(7) The scheme may make provision for—

(a) enforcement, and

(b) civil sanctions in relation to labelling and use of the kitemark.

(8) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.

(9) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing the proposed scheme before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”

New clause 29—Review of public health effects—

“(1) The Secretary of State must review the public health effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on air pollutant levels across the UK,

(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on different socioeconomic groups and population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the 2010 Equality Act,

(c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in the UK, and

(d) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”

Before I call the shadow Minister, I should say that there will be a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions.

[Ruth Jones]

New clauses 12 and 24 were tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon)—all members of the shadow DEFRA team—and with the support of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West); my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott); my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), for Eltham (Clive Efford), for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Neath (Christina Rees), for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield); and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). That is to name but a few.

I give a massive vote of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) for his work on the early stages of the Bill and for all his work to challenge the outdated and unambitious approach of this Government to the future of our planet.

Here we are, back in the House and back discussing the Environment Bill and, I hope, setting out a clear plan to preserve our environment and protect our planet. We are in the middle of a climate and ecological emergency. I know that the Minister knows it, and so do the people of this country, but this climate emergency is no surprise to any of us and did not start yesterday. That is why I remain disappointed that the Tories have voted against every single Labour amendment in Committee and on day 1 on Report. I fear they will do the same today—although, of course, I am happy for the Minister to prove me wrong.

Today has been a long time coming, and I know that many stakeholders, campaigners and people up and down England will be pleased that we are finally here discussing the Environment Bill and looking to make it fit for purpose. Many stakeholders and campaigners will want to see less party politics and more environmental politics in this debate and throughout the Bill’s remaining stages before it moves into the capable hands of our colleagues in the other place.

A person does not need to be a green-fingered disciple of Alan Titchmarsh or an animal-loving admirer of Sir David Attenborough to know that wildlife in Britain is on a downward spiral. We are in a period of crisis that demands real action, not empty words.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she and her team do on these issues. Does she agree that the Minister would do well to look to Wales to see what a bold, ambitious and committed Labour Government can do to protect the environment and preserve our planet?

[Ruth Jones]

I do agree with my hon. Friend: Wales is leading the way and I urge the Minister to seek meetings with the First Minister of Wales and his Environment Minister Lesley Griffiths as soon as possible, so that lessons can be learned and rolled over to England.

As we heard in the previous debate, we have seen 44% of species decline over the past 10 years—and that was on the Minister’s and her party’s watch. Now that we have left the European Union, it is vital that we seek to maintain the highest of environmental standards. That is the approach that the shadow Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—and my colleagues and I in the shadow DEFRA team have taken to this Bill, from Second Reading through to Committee and to today’s Report and remaining stages. We have proposed fair, balanced and necessary amendments, all of which were defeated by this Government. Not one of them was partisan, and not one of them was done to play games. All were done to make this Bill fit for purpose, and our new clauses 12 and 24 do just that. They are balanced and they are fair, and they reflect the will out there of those in communities across England who want an Environment Bill that will preserve our planet and protect our environment.

That brings me on to another opportunity the Government have missed with this Bill. This Bill, this debate today and this moment were the Government’s chance to tell the fracking companies, “Your time is up”, but given the choice between doing something bold and doing nothing at all, we know what DEFRA under this Secretary of State always goes for.

My position and that of the shadow Secretary of State and the Opposition is clear: fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. This is doubly true when we take into account just how damaging fracking is for our environment. When a third of England’s drinking supply is in the groundwater, do we really want to engage in a risky industry that could poison it for good? Even more disturbingly, fracking is causing earthquakes of up to 2.9 on the Richter scale.

In our recovery from covid, we need to focus on creating good green jobs for the future. Fracking is not green and it does not create jobs. According to the fracking company Cuadrilla’s licence application in Lancashire, for example, just 11 jobs will be created across two sites—just 11. Labour MPs up and down the country are standing up for their areas in opposing this. I want to give a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who has done so much work in this area, and I commend her for all she does. Now is the time to join France, Germany, Ireland, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Scotland and, of course, Wales, and put this destructive industry to bed once and for all.

[Chris Grayling]

I would be grateful if the hon. Lady clarified that. Clearly, I support the principle of our leaving fossil fuels in the ground and not using them for the future, but we are going to need natural gas for the time being, albeit I hope that in time we can phase it out. The Germans are planning to bring it in by pipeline from Russia. We are currently bringing it in by tanker from the middle east. What does she think is the best source of natural gas for the coming years, while we still need it?

[Ruth Jones]

We are in a transition phase, and we need not just to look at natural gas, but to look forward to renewables because that is where the future lies. Renewables are the future. We know already, in this country, that there are certain days when no coal is being burned and some days when just renewables are being used. That is the future for the whole of the UK, not just England, and that is where the Opposition would want to be seeing our future. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

I encourage colleagues across the House to get behind Labour’s new clause 12, which would ban fracking and show we really are serious about tackling the environmental crisis that our country and our planet faces—a crisis this Government want to tackle with a 25-year environment plan. Talking about the Government’s 25-year environment plan, it feels as though the last few months have given us less of a plan for the next 25 years and more of an impression that it will take 25 years to develop a plan to preserve our planet and protect our environment. This just is not good enough. While I do not doubt the Minister’s personal commitment, I do wonder if Government Back Benchers really understand what is at stake here and what they need to do.

I now want to move on to the issue of peat burning and to speak to Labour’s new clause 24. I fully accept that soil does not always grab the headlines—it is not particularly sexy—but the impact that peat burning has on our environment is profound, and that is why Labour has tabled this new clause. I want to thank stakeholders, such as Matt Browne at Wildlife and Countryside Link, for all the passionate campaigning on these important issues.

The Government’s peat action plan came three years late. In the meantime, our peatlands have been continuously burned and degraded, releasing approximately 10 million tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere each year. The Government have committed to restoring 35,000 hectares of peatland by 2025, which is great, but that is only one tenth of the 355,000 hectares that need to be restored in England, and we have no clear targets for peatland restoration after 2025. What is going to happen then?

The Government have committed to ban some peat burning, but, again, it is not enough. All we get from this Government are words and hot air, and we need cool, focused and comprehensive action. Labour’s amendment would prohibit the burning of peat of any depth in upland areas. We cannot wait for action any longer. We need a foolproof strategy to restore and protect this vital carbon sink. I hope the Minister will do the right thing and get her colleagues to do what so many out in the real world want us to do, which is to provide action to stop burning peat. It is as simple as that.

Today, we have the chance to improve a weak Bill—a Bill that is lacking in ambition, in focus and in delivering a real and tangible plan to preserve our environment and protect our planet. I encourage the Minister to send a message to the Secretary of State—I wonder where he is today, because this is supposed to be his landmark Bill— and to the Government Whips and tell them that the time has come to get real, to act and to deliver by supporting Labour’s new clauses 12 and 24. There is no better way than by supporting us in the Lobby tonight to show that this Government are finally willing to act, to get real, and to deliver on their rhetoric. The future of our environment and the preservation of our planet demand no less.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]]

I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

There is much to welcome in the Government’s aims. Like most MPs, I look forward to cleaner water and cleaner air. It is right that we take more care of the other species that we share our islands with, and I look forward to those greener and pleasanter lands having more protection and more support. I also welcome the idea that we should plant many more trees. However, at this point in our deliberations, we should ask the Minister to give us a bit more background and information about the costs of this transformation so that we can know that it is realistic and that it will be properly shared.

When we look at the legislation itself and at the impact assessments, we see that there is very little by way of hard information about how much cost may be entailed and who should primarily bear that. There are wide-ranging powers to introduce more waste charges, for example, but the statements in the impact materials say that an impact cannot be assessed and that it will depend, in due course, on what actual charges are brought in. When we look at the very expensive rules on producer responsibility—taking more responsibility for packaging, batteries, waste, electrical equipment and end-of-life vehicles—we are told that a partial cost of the first item is about £1 billion a year, but there is no information on the full cost and there is no information on the others. There is a bit of information on the cost on housebuilders for the habitat provisions, and there is not a lot of worked-through financial information on the deposit return scheme.

I think that there are ways forward where we can make sure both that we have a better environment and that we are earning more revenue from suitable and sustainable exploitation of nature’s abundance. I hope that the Government will work hard on finding ways that enable livelihoods to be increased and improved, just as we are also doing the right things by the environment.

Let us take the case of trees, for example. I do hope that, as we plant many more trees, there will be more sustainable forestry. I always thought it quite wrong that we import so much wood from across the Atlantic to burn in the Drax power station, when surely we should be looking for sustainable sources at home. It is also quite wrong that we import so much of the timber that we need for our big house building projects, when, again, this is a good climate for growing softwood. Surely we can go about our task of finding sustainable ways. We need to cut the wood miles and to have that sustainable forestry here, as well as having the beautiful and diverse trees in our landscape in suitable places where the Government will offer their own taxpayer-based financial support.



Let us hear a little more about the livelihoods and the opportunities. Let us show how we can have both a beautiful countryside and a working countryside, so that we can cut the wood miles and the food miles, ensure more buy-in from business and individuals to these great aims of having a better natural environment because of the opportunities to do more at home, and have that happy conjunction of success in business, harnessing nature’s abundance and the beauty of nature’s abundance, while respecting all the other species that share our islands with us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now go to the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

16:15

[Deidre Brock [V]]

I will be brief, because as I have already laid out, this is almost entirely an English Bill, but I wanted to touch on new clause 12.

The new clause is a good addition that the Government should welcome. Scotland banned fracking some time ago and Wales has made it very difficult to get the permissions needed. Adding a fracking ban to the Bill would complete the set, and we in the SNP certainly support that, because when our neighbours keep trying to set their house on fire, we want to help them to stop.

Fracking releases gas—at a greater input cost than other types of gas well, I might add—and not all the gas is collected for commercial exploitation. Fracking is associated with a greater escape of gas to the atmosphere than other forms of gas production, which in itself contributes to the climate crisis. The seismic effects may cross borders, of course, and the large amounts of road traffic needed for frack wells gets in the way of other transport needs and themselves contribute to the climate chaos. It is in everyone’s interest to make sure that neighbouring countries do not frack the place up, but responsibilities for the licensing of oil and gas development since the Scotland Act 2016 was passed rest with the Scottish Government; the clause therefore impacts on devolved powers.

Finally, I want to correct a statement the shadow Secretary of State made earlier. He said that the UK was the first country to declare a climate emergency. It was not. The climate emergency petition started in Australia—many very good things come from Australia—and dotted around the world for a while before the Scottish Government became the first to declare a climate emergency, closely followed by Wales. England caught up a wee while later—aye ahint.

[Chris Grayling]

I will focus my remarks on the issues I raise in new clause 19. We have talked about deforestation this afternoon and I pay tribute to the Minister in particular, because she has been a driving force in ensuring that the Bill takes significant steps on deforestation, in effect making it illegal and much more challenging to bring the fruits of illegal deforestation to the United Kingdom. That is absolutely right. The stronger the law on that front, the better.

What the Bill does not do, and what it is difficult for any Government to do, is prevent the fruits of legal deforestation arriving in the United Kingdom. Only now do we see the issues in Brazil, where the Bolsonaro Government are looking to pursue further legislative change that could lead to further deforestation in the Amazon—something none of us can afford to let happen. Through the new clause and its underlying principle, I am encouraging the Government to take a step that I believe would make a real difference to those who seek legally to deforest in other parts of the world—to put the power not in the hands of regulators, but in the hands of consumers. I passionately believe that if consumers around the world say no to the consequences of deforestation, it will be much more difficult for Governments or individuals to pursue deforestation, whether it is legal or illegal.

In this country, if I go to the supermarket and want to know whether the product I am buying contains anything that has damaged forests, it is pretty difficult to tell. If I do not want to buy a product with palm oil in it, I have to scrutinise the small print of the ingredients on the back to establish whether it contains palm oil. If there is palm oil, it is even more difficult to work out whether it comes from a sustainable source. Some aspects of our supply chains are invisible, such as whether the soy meal fed to the animals whose meat we eat came from a sustainable source or—much, much more likely—from an unsustainable source. We have to address that issue, and I think one of the ways to do that is to have a proper system of food labelling in this country that indicates whether a product comes from a sustainable source.

There is a lot of work taking place right now in the private sector, by retailers and others, and in the academic sector to look at how we would assess the sustainability of a product. It is about not just the food we buy in a shop, but the ingredients that go into that food. I think labelling should be placed on the sacks of soybean meal that go to feed pigs in our pig farms, as well as on the products that we buy in the shops, to indicate very clearly to buyers and consumers when a product comes from a carefully thought-out, sustainable source and when it does not. Work is being done by big supermarkets, academics and some really innovative smaller food companies to try to ensure that there is a good way of tracking the sustainability of a food source.

In the end, what we cannot have is the wild west of food labelling. What we need is a coherent, single approach that enables a consumer, in an easily recognisable way, to say, “I know that I can buy that in good conscience,” or “I know that that’s a product that creates problems for the environment.” The truth is that that label alone will ensure that the buyer does not buy the product and that it never appears and there is no market for it. My request and message to the Secretary of State and the Minister—I will follow this up over the coming months—is please to follow the path of introducing a single system of sustainable food labelling, sending the message to consumers, “You are empowered to make the right choices.”

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

I want to address most of my remarks to new clause 12 and fracking, but before I turn to that specifically, I want to put on record my concerns about flooding, because we are in a climate and ecological emergency and we are seeing increased instances of flooding. I have certainly witnessed that in my Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency, and it concerns me that at the same time the Environment Agency budget has been cut by a third and the fire and rescue service by a fifth. It is simply not enough to wring our hands while making these cuts, when we cannot respond to the flooding emergency, so I urge the Minister to look again at these cuts and at investing in upland water management.

The Environment Bill is the Government’s first opportunity to bring in equivalent standards to those in the EU regulations, so, frankly, if we cannot secure strong environmental protections in this Bill, it certainly bodes ill for securing workers’ rights and workplace protections. New clause 12 would revoke current fracking licences and prevent the Oil and Gas Authority from being able to provide future licences for hydraulic fracturing, exploration or acidification. Fracking is a big deal in Lancashire. When Cuadrilla started, in just two months 57 earthquakes were detected. Cuadrilla stopped fracking five times because it triggered earthquakes bigger than the Government rules allowed. Even more disturbingly, a year later, an earthquake measuring 2.9 on the Richter scale led to a review by the Oil and Gas Authority, which, worryingly, concluded that it was not possible to predict the probability or size of the tremors caused by fracking.

My Lancashire constituents and, indeed, much of the country were relieved when the Government got around to launching a moratorium halting fracking and exploration with immediate effect, but in the past two years the Government have failed to deliver the legislation that is needed to give effect to their promise. If the Minister is not willing to support new clause 12 today, when will that come? It was a relief that the Government got as far as the moratorium almost two years ago, but we need something concrete—something solid—behind that. If the Minister is to assure my constituents that the Bill is not just empty words, will she accept Labour’s new clause and legislate to ban fracking once and for all?

We know from the Lancashire experiment on fracking that it is a risky way of extracting dirty energy. We have seen that France, Germany, Ireland, Bulgaria, New York state and the Netherlands, as well as Scotland and Wales, all agree, so this is our opportunity to bring England into line. There are so many risks surrounding fracking, and the Government know that or they would not have called the moratorium in the first place. The British Geological Survey is very clear:

“Groundwater may be potentially contaminated by extraction of shale gas”.

In England, groundwater supplies a third of our drinking water.

In addition, the assertion that fracking will lead to a jobs boom is simply not true. Cuadrilla’s application in Lancashire talked about starting just 11 jobs, and that is before we start looking at the jobs that would be put at risk by fracking happening on the Lancashire coast, because so many of our jobs on the Fylde coast are in the tourism industry, and people are not keen to holiday next to fracking wells.

Most importantly, scientists agree that if we are to avoid dangerous levels of global warming, fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. With every application comes huge environmental concern. There is a risk of additional carbon emissions, as well as the understandable anxiety for local people about the impact of earth tremors and water contamination. When will the Minister listen and finally take action? Now is our chance, once and for all, to tell the fracking companies that time’s up, and to put the future of our planet and our communities first.

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

More pearls of wisdom for the Government to listen to.

I am delighted we have reached the Report stage of this landmark Environment Bill, which examines our vital relationship with nature and how that affects wildlife generally. The Treasury-sponsored Dasgupta review on the economics of biodiversity calls for transformational change as our demands of nature outstrips its capacity to supply for us. I am delighted with our Government’s commitment to invest in new green industries to create jobs while protecting the environment, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, although we certainly need more charging points for electric vehicles in Southend. However, legislative changes need to be implemented urgently to ensure that our action towards the environment and animals is responsible and sustainable.

Ultimately, if we damage the environment, we will destroy ecosystems that animals rely on. It is estimated that because of our activities over the past 200,000 years, the total amount of living matter on the planet has actually decreased by 50%—shocking. As biomass falls, so does biodiversity. We see large depletions in insect numbers and bulky oceanic fish such as tuna and cod, and the conversion of natural habitats to agriculture. Most wildlife hotspots are now down to small percentages of their former ranges.

I want to see our country leading on this issue. Our presidency of the COP26 summit in November will, I hope, spur urgent action throughout the world. We should review our international aid budget, and direct it towards global habitat and biodiversity protection, which unfortunately has recently fallen to below 0.5%. One way we can enhance domestic biodiversity and allow nature to recover is to rewild our seas, uplands, peatlands, flood lands and coasts. We should ensure that at least 30% of our seas are no-activity marine conservation zones. I certainly welcome the reintroduction of the beaver and I hope we will be able to reintroduce many more species that were once native to England.

The Bill, I believe, will be critical in setting out how farmers protect nature and the environment. Intensive farming and industrial fishing practices are two of the main drivers of biodiversity loss. I am sorry if that upsets colleagues who have many farms in their constituencies, but factory farming is unsustainable as a system. It is polluting our air and water, killing our wildlife, degrading our soil, and altering our climate. We are out of balance with nature and our environment. That must change. The natural world and the man-made world are closely linked, and therefore planning reforms should be legally implemented to enable nature’s recovery, strengthening protections for sites designated for nature, and increasing developer contributions to nature’s recovery. Our population continues to grow at a fast pace, which puts pressure on our greenbelts and countryside. I hope the Government will not allow more of our green and open land to be covered by large-scale developments.

In conclusion, it is so important that we approach the challenge of building back better by creating a brighter future with respect for our environment and other living beings with which we share our planet. We must think sustainably about our health, the billions of sentient animals and the protection of our precious planet, as I am sure David Attenborough would agree.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]]

I will speak to new clause 29, in my name and that of my colleagues, which would compel the Environment Secretary to assess the impacts of the Bill on air quality, how different population groups will be exposed to air pollutants and, subsequently, how that differential exposure will impact on their health.

It is our exposure to health risks and hazards that determines our health status—how long we are going to live, and how long we are going to live in good health. The money, resources and power we have will determine where and how we live. It will determine whether our family’s home is on a busy road or motorway, or in a leafy suburb. It will determine not only our risk of being involved in a road traffic accident but our exposure to toxic emissions from traffic. The poorer someone is, the greater the likelihood that they will be exposed to pollutants at levels that are hazardous to their health. We also know that, if someone is disabled, black, of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage or a single parent, they are more likely to be poor.

16:30

Let us be clear: air pollution is bad for everyone. The 2016 Royal College of Physicians report “Every breath we take” estimated that, every year, 40,000 people die prematurely as a result of the poor outdoor air quality they are exposed to and that people on low incomes are disproportionately affected. The health problems resulting from our exposure to air pollution have a high cost to health for those who suffer from illness and premature death but also to our health services and to the economy. In the UK, those costs are estimated to be more than £20 billion every year.

For me, it is the human tragedies resulting from this air pollution that strike home. Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah was nine years old when she died from an asthma attack. At her inquest, the coroner said that levels of nitrogen dioxide near Ella’s home exceeded World Health Organisation and European Union guidelines. He added:

“there was a recognised failure to reduce the level of nitrogen dioxide…which possibly contributed to her death.”

The coroner concluded that Ella died of an asthma attack contributed to by exposure to excessive air pollution. He said that “legally binding targets” based on WHO guidelines are needed to reduce the number of deaths from air pollution in the UK.

The public health response to air pollution is to protect people and the environment in ways that are socially inclusive and equitable globally and across multiple generations. The Government must ensure that that happens through the Bill. Implementing my new clause’s review would demonstrate whether the Bill will reduce exposure to hazardous air pollutants for people on low incomes as much as it will for those on more affluent incomes. It would signal the Government’s real commitment to protecting all our health and, importantly, it would signal to Ella’s family that the Government are listening.

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

While I welcome the measures in the Bill to standardise the collection of plastic waste across all local authorities, I remain very concerned at the continued increase in the production of single-use plastic. Too much of this plastic ends up as litter around our country and around the world, harming human, animal and marine health. We must start to reduce the amount of single-use plastic we make, as some of the projections for its continued production are truly alarming.

We also need to massively improve our performance on littering and fly-tipping. Part of the area in my constituency that a group of us cleared up litter from on Saturday as part of the Great British Spring Clean was already covered in litter again by Sunday. As Lord Kirkham said in the Queen’s Speech debate,

“research suggests that we have few, if any, rivals for the unwanted title of ‘most littered country in the developed world’…It is soul-destroying and dangerous to humans and animals; it pollutes the very air we breathe; it depresses and saps a nation’s morale.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 May 2021; Vol. 812, c. 409.]

We need more covert cameras to catch the culprits and more prosecutions, with greater fines, to act as a significant deterrent. Parents and schools need to do their bit to deter the next generation from littering, which is not only antisocial but criminal.

I am told by South Bedfordshire Friends of the Earth that we have, at times, continuous sewage discharge into the River Ouzel, which is a valuable wildlife corridor through Leighton Buzzard. There are very low numbers of freshwater shrimps in the river, and a chemical quality that was good in 2015 and 2016 was reported as a fail in 2019, according to the Environment Agency. We will therefore need to continue to strengthen legislation on continuous sewage discharges.

While I warmly welcome the world-leading parts of this Bill to mandate larger businesses not to source commodities from illegally deforested land, I am concerned about commodities sourced from legally deforested land, and rainforests in particular. I would like to see a certification scheme, similar to the Fairtrade one, so that we can all be reassured that the food we are eating has not come to us at the expense of virgin rainforests.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

No. 10 on the speakers’ list is not here, so we will go to Barry Gardiner.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]]

I am delighted to support new clauses 12 and 24, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). It is vital to preserve our most effective carbon sinks. The UK’s peatlands cover only 10% of our land, yet they store about 3 billion tonnes of carbon. Sadly, we have degraded our peatlands to such an extent that only 20% are now in their natural state. Heather and grass burning regulations currently only cover upland peat in areas designated as SSSIs and special areas of conservation, so new clause 24 extends the ban on rotational burning across all upland peat habitats.

Burning vegetation on our most important natural sinks not only hinders our ability to meet our emissions targets, but impedes our biodiversity and water quality ambitions. Currently, only 40% of our peat is covered by the existing regulation. I support new clause 24 to protect the full 355,000 hectares of upland peat in England.

I also support new clause 19, tabled by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). Land conversion to agriculture for our high-meat, high-dairy diets is a key driver of biodiversity loss. It is responsible for 14% of global emissions and for 35 million tonnes of CO₂ in the UK alone. Tackling deforestation in UK company supply chains is therefore essential, and the new clause would introduce a labelling scheme so that consumers can be assured that the food they are eating is not a driver either of biodiversity decline or the climate emergency.

The right hon. Member also spoke about new clause 12, arguing that we should permit fracking in the UK as an interim fuel as we transition to a fully renewable energy system. The problem is that the interim is too short and the return on investment demanded by the companies takes too long. That would mean that fracking companies left us with stranded assets. Some would say that is their problem, but when the Government have offered the fracking industry the most generous tax reliefs anywhere in the world and 75% capital allowances, it is not their problem, but that of taxpayers. So fracking in the UK should be prohibited and new clause 12 would do that.

The Government have now accepted the need for a statutory target to halt the decline of nature by 2030, and I welcome that, but the Minister must set out further details of the measures she proposes to deliver on the targets and how implementation will be reported to Parliament. The Minister will be aware of the work of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on biodiversity indicators. Indicators can be used to aid policy decisions, but the difficulty of setting appropriate baselines for reference and the ambiguity of biodiversity targets are compounded by the differing sensitivity of indicators to change over time. Indicators may be about biomass, endangered species or trends of common species. The ability to obfuscate about whether targets have been reached is too great, unless the Minister is specific about the indicators that will be adopted, what the baselines are, how they will be measured and what their implications are for policy development.

POST sets out how it is possible to pursue biodiversity targets that would have a positive outcome in the UK, but would offshore far greater negative biodiversity impacts to other countries. I ask the Minister to respond to the POST note on biodiversity indicators by setting out which DEFRA will use to achieve which ends and which targets it will use. Will she adopt a coherent global perspective to ensure that we achieve a reversal of the loss of biodiversity not just in the UK, but in the overseas territories, for whose biodiversity we are responsible under the convention, and with a globally net positive outcome?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

As there have been some withdrawals and some people have not turned up, I am unusually going to put the time limit up to five minutes.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

That is incredibly kind, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am extremely grateful.

In case Members of the House have forgotten, I should declare my interest: my family are farmers in my home constituency of West Dorset. I have had the privilege of speaking in every Reading of this Bill in the House so far, and I am extremely grateful again to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), for the work that she has done and for how she continues to engage with Members from across the House on this very important Bill.

To start with, there are a couple of things that I would like to remind the Minister about, in terms of particular issues in West Dorset that are incredibly important. The A35 between Bridport and Lyme Regis, specifically at Chideock, has the highest levels of nitrogen dioxide anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is incredibly important to my constituents that we can take this Bill forward, and that the Minister can do all she can to make sure that we take those powers and act on dealing with that very difficult issue.

Single-use plastics have been a continual frustration of mine. I have spoken to constituents on many occasions, and I feel that, when we walk into a supermarket, we see shelves of plastic with food inside, rather than buying food alone. This Bill makes important provisions to deal with some of that. When we see that supermarkets such as Tesco had a 2.2% increase in single-use plastics between 2017 and 2019, it proves that this issue is incredibly difficult and that we need to ensure that we take the powers in this Bill and the subsequent Act to deal with it.

I also rise to speak in support of my new clause 28, which is on food labelling, and specifically with a focus on food miles. I am tabling this amendment today because I think it is incredibly important that there is complete transparency about the food that we buy. I know that a lot of my friends from Camden and Islington are great fans of avocados, but being of a farmer’s son, I prefer West Dorset sausage to avocados, and I would rather get that meat from just round the corner, rather than have avocados that have been flown thousands and thousands of miles across the world to be brought here. I am not here to speak in support of, or in opposition to, a particular meat agenda or a particular vegetarian or vegan agenda, but it is important that we see complete transparency about what we buy, so that we as individuals and the consumers of the nation can make an informed decision that prioritises the environmental needs that we all have.

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), at the conclusion of the Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill, very kindly offered that the Government would undertake a consultation into food labelling, and she said that that would commence this year. I would be very grateful indeed if her colleague, the Minister here today, was able to share some more details on that, because I am conscious that a substantial amount of time has passed since then. Once we have that labelling in place, I believe that we should then build on that. That labelling will indeed allow consumers to make the choice, along the same lines that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) outlined earlier, but going forward I want that labelling to be expanded. I also want it to clearly identify, for meat products, whether or not that meat has been humanely slaughtered, because that is increasingly important in this country. In concluding my remarks, I should be extremely grateful to hear from the Minister on these points, and to see exactly what the Government will do in respect of my proposed new clause.

16:45

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I was elected on the back of the greenest manifesto Labour had ever proposed. We understood the scale of the climate crisis and set forward proposals to rapidly decarbonise our economy by protecting precious natural resources.

Representing the constituency of Cynon Valley, which lies in the foothills of the Brecon Beacons in south Wales, I, along with my constituents, take great pride in our natural environment, which we are determined to protect. As Members of Parliament we are in an extremely privileged position, and it is our duty to act on climate change for the sake of future generations. That is why I am disappointed with this Bill. Now that we have left the EU, it is essential that we set out in law certain environmental protections, but the measures in the Bill are not ambitious enough. Thankfully, others in the Chamber have proposed a more meaningful course of action. Many of my friends and colleagues have tabled amendments and new clauses that I support.

New clause 12 would end the deeply damaging practice of fracking, which can cause seismic activity, water contamination and ill health to local residents. The Welsh Government have blocked the process for more than five years, and I call on the UK Government to follow suit.

New clause 24 would extend the Government’s peat burning ban to cover all upland peat in England. Peat plays a crucial role in naturally trapping and storing carbon, and is among the most valuable ecosystems on earth. We need to be encouraging these habitats rather than allowing their destruction. The Welsh Government have again gone further, and last year laid out a five-year plan for peatland restoration. In the south Wales valleys, including in my constituency of Cynon Valley, 540 hectares of peatland have been reintroduced, which will not only create a vibrant habitat and trap carbon dioxide but reduce the growing risk of forest fires.

New clause 29 would go a long way towards addressing the impact of the Bill on public health and, in particular, air pollution, which is responsible for an estimated 64,000 premature deaths annually in the UK. People are starting to challenge this. I was proud to be involved with the brilliant local campaign in my constituency against waste incineration led by the Valleys For Tourism Not Trash campaign. I am absolutely delighted that that campaign was successful. I am also extremely pleased that the Welsh Government have now placed a moratorium on the building of such incinerators, and again call on the UK Government to follow suit.

Wales has recognised that we have a climate emergency that is an existential threat. The new Senedd now has a Minister for Climate Change. I am especially proud that we already have an ambitious national forest plan to enhance and create woodland habitat in a connected way across Wales. That will have a key role in replacing fossil fuels, storing carbon, and helping us to cope with the effects of a changing climate. I applaud the Welsh Government for committing to ban the use of single-use plastic. The UK Government must also give this topic the priority it needs if we are to save the planet. This requires a radical change of economic emphasis supporting the creation of at least 1 million new green jobs.

While there are many aspects of this Bill that I welcome, it does not go far enough or fast enough to ensure that future generations can enjoy the world and not suffer the consequences of our abuse and misuse of our resources.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Jacob Young has withdrawn, so we go to Geraint Davies.

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

The world faces a catastrophic climate change crisis, yet this Bill falls very short, particularly at a time when we are the host of COP26 and should basically be taking on the leadership of the entire world. After all, global emissions are up by 60% since the Kyoto conference in 1990, while global temperatures are up by 1.2° C on the 1850 base rate and will hit the 1.5° level by 2030 on the current forecast, which will mean loss of land and major problems of migration, food loss and so on. Meanwhile, some 7 million people are dying every year from air pollution caused by fossil fuel extraction and use. I am therefore very pleased that new clause 29 attempts to link human health with environmental health. After all, on the latest figures, 64,000 people a year die from air pollution at a cost of £20 billion to our economy.

Of course, we know that air pollution was registered as the cause of death in the tragic case of Ella Kissi-Debrah. In the prevention of death report that followed, the coroner recommended that we should enforce in law the World Health Organisation air pollution limits. Following a meeting I had with the Environment Secretary and Ella’s mother, Rosamund, the Environment Secretary said that he would look again at that, and I hope he will when the Bill comes back from the Lords.

We know that air pollution is worse in poorer and more diverse communities, and according to the Max Planck Society, it increases the risk and level of death from coronavirus by around 12%. Other studies have been done by, for example, Harvard, showing that link. Dominic Cummings has just reminded us that coronavirus is airborne and that more emphasis needs to be put on that, but we also need to place more emphasis on air pollution. We know that the infection rate, as well as the death rate, is higher with air pollution. We therefore need legally binding WHO limits.

Let me turn to fracking. Methane emissions are 80 times worse than carbon dioxide for global warming. Given that and the fact that we know from satellite photography that fracking is responsible for 5% fugitive emissions—in other words, 5% of the methane is leaked—fracking is worse than coal for climate change and should simply be banned.

We need more trees, not just to absorb but to store carbon by including them in infrastructure and construction instead of concrete. If concrete were a country, it would be the third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. I am glad that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) said, Wales is taking a lead on this. In Wales, we have appointed a Minister for Climate Change, Julie James, who also represents Swansea West. She will push forward plans for a national forest and using wood in building. In contrast, in the UK, most of the hardwood is burned, causing not just climate change but harmful pollution. Hardwood should be pulped and put into insulation in construction instead.

Brexit means that we have more food miles. We need an initiative in COP26 to put carbon pricing into trade. China, for example, now generates 28% of global carbon emissions, with more emissions per head than Britain. We therefore need a joined-up approach, led by the Bill, that includes trade, transport, health, local government, planning and housing, not just a DEFRA-led effort, which will make little difference to the massive problems we face.

In summary, we need much more, much sooner from all our Departments. We need to improve the Bill dramatically to make a real difference and take global leadership.

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

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a serving local councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association, which I will reference during my contribution.

There are many things to be welcomed in the Bill. The first, which is particularly important to my constituents, is that we will see some improvement in air quality as a result of the measures in it. It is clear that, in many respects, legislation is the start, not the finish of a process. Different Departments will issue a great deal of guidance to local authorities and other bodies to set out the mechanics of how the powers will be used and improvements brought about.

On air quality, I particularly highlight the need to ensure that local authorities and any others who are charged with responsibility for implementing the measures, achieving the targets and delivering the plans have meaningful powers that enable them to tackle sources of air pollution. In the context of London, where my constituency is—the capital, which has busy and congested roads—we need to ensure that local authorities have effective powers at their disposal to tackle issues such as vehicle idling, which contributes so much to air pollution, especially near schools, hospitals and other places where vulnerable people are placed at risk.

Let me move on to plastics. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who has been very active in bringing issues around plastics to the Government’s attention throughout the debates on the Bill. It is particularly important that local authorities ensure that in the provisions for producer responsibility, sufficient funding finds its way to those who will then be processing the plastic for recycling. Producers in the UK pay very little by comparison with those in most other developed countries in Europe towards the cost of recycling their products, and therefore that cost is heavily subsidised, if not entirely met in many places, by council tax payers. So we should ask those who are making these products that are then polluting our environment to ensure that they are providing the facilities and resources required to make that recycling happen in reality.

On the wider impact on recycling systems, a number of Members welcomed consistency around local authority recycling practices. We need to recognise that the sale of the recyclable elements of household waste already makes a significant contribution to the cost of household waste collections; it affects all our constituents, although there are different systems in use around the country. We need to ensure that programmes such as deposit return schemes do not hit council tax payers by removing so much of the recyclable material from household waste collections that a significant increase in council tax is needed to subsidise that difference. We need to make sure that when that guidance is issued to local authorities it reflects the discharge of their responsibilities on the ground.

I very much support the point made by a number of Members that we need to look at the whole picture for all kinds of goods and services so that we recognise the wider environmental impact, including the impact that might happen elsewhere. We are simply kidding ourselves and our constituents if we are offshoring pollution rather than dealing with it directly by ensuring that what we do in our behaviour and the way we deliver services is reducing the environmental impact.

I finally want to touch on a couple of issues that impact in particular on the natural environment and biodiversity. I very much welcome the work my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) has done in strengthening and making more robust the policy on sewage discharge. The River Colne, a beauty spot that abuts my constituency and is very popular with my constituents, is significantly affected by sewage discharge. Again, we need to ensure that there are effective measures that make a substantial difference.

On biodiversity net gain, I simply make a request to Ministers that when the guidance is issued about how that will be managed through the planning process, we ensure as far as possible that biodiversity gain through planning is maintained locally, so that the local communities that see the impact of the developments in their area also see the benefit of the biodiversity gain envisaged through the planning system.

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak on fracking, an issue close to my constituents’ hearts and mine, and to reject clearly the unnecessary and transparently political new clause 12. Since I was elected to this place in 2017, I have spoken out against fracking, held debates, proposed Bills, submitted questions, chaired an all-party group, spoken at planning committees and hearings and appeals against QCs, and generally made a nuisance of myself to the Government Front Bench about fracking, because I wanted it stopped at Marsh Lane and in North East Derbyshire, and I make no apologies for that. I was delighted when the Government put a moratorium on fracking, and I am glad to have played a very small role in getting us to that place.

Yet suddenly, a year and a half after the moratorium was imposed, we have a burning issue—a problem so acute that a series of straw men have been wheeled out from the Opposition Benches over the course of this debate, creating the need to ban something that is effectively dead already. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who is not in her place at present, said we only have empty words. Well, empty words have a funny way of stopping any fracking happening since that moratorium in late 2017, and of ensuring that licences in her own county were partially handed back by the operator of the fracking area.

Why is it that 49 Labour MPs have suddenly decided that there is new urgency to legislate on this matter? There is not. We know there is no urgency, precisely because those 49 Labour MPs have shown almost zero interest in that issue in recent times. Forty-three of those 49 were in Parliament between 2017 and 2019. Where were those hon. Members when the all-party parliamentary group on fracking, which I chaired, talked about all these issues in extraordinary detail?

17:00

Where were any of those hon. Members in the last debate held in this place on fracking, on 28 September 2020, called by a Conservative, when the Minister said that

“fracking will not be taken forward in England”

and that we should

“accept victory”?—[Official Report, 28 September 2020; Vol. 681, c. 133-34.]

How have they been using this place since the moratorium announcement in late 2017, if they think it is so deficient, and is now so clearly burnt in the depths of their souls? I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that any of those 49 people have spoken about fracking in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall since that point.

Let us be clear about what the amendment is. It is not a thoughtful, careful proposal that seeks to resolve an urgent issue. It does not solve a burning problem that burns up and down the land. The placards are not waving high for Government intervention. Nor does it necessarily, technically, fix the problem before us. The definition put forward by the Opposition would not have stopped any of the three fracks that have occurred since 2011.

Those of us who were involved in the campaign in the previous Parliament do not need the Labour Front Bench trying to hijack and politicise the issue once again, when it has been solved. We do not need the pretence that those who signed the amendment actually care about the issue, when they were nowhere to be seen when it mattered, when we were actually trying to stop this industry. It is almost as though, when the Opposition run out of amendments to table, they just pull out an old favourite and see which Bill they can attach it to.

Fracking is over. The battle is won. The industry has packed up. It is done. And I will not support an amendment that pretends otherwise, to a Bill that has nothing to do with energy, which will cause unnecessary worry to constituents who have been worried about it for many years, and which is clearly a shoddy attempt to play political games.

The shadow Minister opened her remarks by saying that she hoped to make this issue less party political. Great. Stop playing political games. Reject the amendment.

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]]

With the highest-ever temperatures recorded in the Arctic circle, and with just 3% of the world’s ecosystems remaining intact, we cannot delay taking radical action to save our planet and future generations, yet this Environment Bill does not go nearly far enough to tackle the climate and ecological emergency.

As we emerge from the pandemic, we must raise our ambition to forge a new social settlement, a green new deal, to rebuild the country with a more just and sustainable economy. We must fight for a society in which public health always, always comes before private profit, and it must be the big polluters and corporate giants who bear the costs, not ordinary people. It is vital that those responsible for climate chaos—the fossil-fuel companies and big polluters—are held responsible for their actions.

Fracking is bad for people and the environment; therefore we must ban it. It is vital that the protection of all workers and communities is guaranteed during the transition to a carbon-free, renewable-energies future. As we rebuild our economy from the ruins of a pandemic, it is possible for the Government to create 1 million green jobs with a programme of investment in renewable energy, flood defences and a resilient health and care service.

The coronavirus crisis has demonstrated the need for communities like Leicester to have access to clean air, green spaces, streets for people and interconnectivity. That is why we must also introduce full-fibre broadband free at the point of use, a mass house insulation programme, and a green, integrated public transport system.

Air pollution has reached dangerous levels under this Government, with 60% of people in England now breathing illegally poor air. Many of my constituents have contacted me regarding the need for a stronger environmental Bill for clean air in Leicester. The Government must enshrine the World Health Organisation’s guideline for damaging particulates known as PM_2.5 in law via the Environment Bill. Currently the Bill falls short and merely commits to setting a new, unspecified target by 2022. Our current legal limit for PM_2.5 is twice as high as the World Health Organisation recommends. I urge the Government to adopt a clear legal commitment to reduce these particulates, which, as we know, contributed to more than 4 million deaths in 2016.

Without much more ambitious Government intervention, the urgent action required to preserve a habitable planet will be too slow. This will cause unmanageable ecological disruption and could cost millions of lives—most sharply in countries of the global south, which have contributed the least to climate change. To ensure a global green new deal, our Government must strongly consider the cancellation of global south debt to enable investment in public health. The UK must also end international fossil fuel finance and rapidly step up financial support for a just global energy transition.

The upcoming COP26 in Glasgow provides a crucial opportunity to reset our relationship to climate justice, yet the conference risks excluding representatives from countries that are most at risk from climate breakdown. Every possible step must be taken to ensure that COP26 is accessible for all and that it is a turning point for more radical climate action. While we recover from the pandemic, a green ambition must be hard-wired into everything we do as we rebuild our economy. To achieve this, the Government must raise their ambitions, seriously rewrite the Environment Bill, work with the Opposition and begin to act on the scale that the climate crisis demands.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Nos. 17, 19, 20 and 21 on the list have withdrawn, so we go straight to the final speaker from the Back Benches: Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not often that four speakers ahead of me drop out; does that mean that I have 20 minutes to speak? I know the answer to that—you don’t have to tell me.

I am really pleased to speak on a matter of such importance. We have to get this right from the outset. I welcome the commitment of the Minister and the Government to the Bill. I was extremely pleased to see enhanced measures in the Queen’s Speech, as anything that we can do to enhance the impact of the Bill is welcome.

We have a responsibility to the generations that follow to be the gatekeepers—to instil in them a passion for our environment and a duty to be the best we can, even if it means that life is a little bit tougher. Whether our rubbish sorting takes longer, whether we spend longer at the recycling centre or whether we must leave goods to a local charity shop, we must all play our role. I remember very well when my council went into recycling and many people objected to it—probably just for the sake of objecting—but today every one of us energetically and physically recycles all the products in our house: everything that should be, in the blue bin; glass in the glass bin; the grey bin for the ordinary stuff that we had before; and the brown bin for the stuff that goes elsewhere.

I want to ask two questions. The Government’s role is to provide a Bill that enforces statutory obligations and bodies, and I support them in that aim. I was contacted by the Law Society, which has raised some concerns in reference to clause 22 that I wish to outline. It says that the appointments process for the chair and non-executive members should be strengthened so that the Secretary of State does not have sole authority over appointments. The Law Society welcomes the proposed OEP, which must play a central role in ensuring that institutions and organisations, including Government Departments, meet their environmental responsibilities. In order for the OEP to be effective in fulfilling this role, it is essential that it is fully independent from the Government.

The Government have stated that they intend the OEP to be an independent authority that is capable of holding the Government to account. If that is the case, it is exactly what the Law Society wishes to see; however, the Law Society is concerned that certain provisions for the OEP in the Bill could impinge on its independence and potentially undermine its ability to carry out its functions effectively. Will the Minister say whether issue has been addressed to the Law Society’s satisfaction?

Next I wish to speak about an issue that has not come up yet—well, it has come up in respect of the introduction, but my suggestion has not. I do not expect the Minister to endorse my request right away. It is an unusual request but one in respect of which my local council back home has brought in a pilot scheme, and I feel it is important. The carrier bag scheme run by the Government here and all the regional Governments was exceptional and it has done great stuff. It brought in a revenue fund that could then be used for different projects across the whole area.

I have a genuine request to make, on behalf of constituents who have spoken to me, for a scheme for the use of single-use nappies. I bring this request forward because of the figures, which show that around 3 billion single-use nappies are thrown away annually in the UK, costing local authorities some £60 million per year. I have three grandchildren under the age of two, so perhaps my two daughters-in-law are in that category. As we know, the vast amounts of raw materials used for production and disposal means that the life-cycle of a nappy can generate as much CO₂ as 15,000 plastic bags and around half a tree in fluff pulp per child.

I bring this request forward because reusable nappies use 98% fewer raw materials and generate 99% less waste. They deliver savings of more than £1,000 for parents. My local council back home, Ards and North Down Borough Council, brought in a pilot scheme. Is it possible that by providing starter packs to parents, we may be able to encourage those who are able to do so to take up this way of helping the environment? We could use this legislation to encourage the Government, the regional Governments and others to provide the funding packages to encourage the use of reusable nappies for those who want to do it but do not know how and when to start that journey. It might not be something that the Minister can do today, but perhaps she can give us some encouragement that it might happen.

[Rebecca Pow]

I again thank all Members who tabled amendments and who contributed to this afternoon’s debate, demonstrating yet again the strength of feeling and the desire to improve and enhance the environment through this landmark Environment Bill. I can only say that I was slightly disappointed that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), did not quite seem to grasp the Bill’s intricacies, which together will provide such a framework to protect the environment, but I know, because she was a great Committee member, that in her heart of hearts she really does support the Bill.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who raised many issues that which will be tackled in the Bill, not least through the electronic tracking of waste. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) welcomes the nature target that we have just announced and the measures on biodiversity net gain, all of which will help to achieve the things he is so proud of and pushing for. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) for her comments. I assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we are indeed exploring reusable nappies. I certainly used them for one of my children and we are looking at their use, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion.

Let me turn to new clause 12, on shale gas extraction. The Government set out their position in full via a written statement to the House on 4 December 2019. The Government will take a presumption against issuing any further hydraulic fracturing consent. That sends a clear message to the sector and to local communities that, on current evidence, fracking will not be taken forward in England. The moratorium will be maintained unless compelling new evidence is provided that addresses the concerns about the prediction and management of induced seismicity. Such evidence has yet to be presented and the moratorium remains. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) who, with all his knowledge, spoke with such authority on the subject. I could not have put the case better myself. He stressed what a game the Opposition were playing in tabling the new clause.

On new clause 19, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and new clause 28, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), although we are sympathetic to the principles of the sustainability of labelling, existing voluntary schemes already provide consistent and recognised tools that consumers can use to reduce their environmental impact when purchasing food.

However, I would like to give assurances that we are working with industry and the Competition and Markets Authority on plans to produce guidance to businesses on how best to improve their transparency in relation to claims about environmental impact. We will also investigate opportunities to review other aspects of food labelling when we have the outcomes of Henry Dimbleby’s independent review of the food system in the early summer and then the food strategy White Paper from the Government within six months.

17:15

New clause 24 deals with the burning of peat. We have committed to exploring the environmental and economic case for extending peat protections further in the England peat action plan, which was published just last week. In that plan, we committed to immediately fund 35,000 hectares of peatland restoration by 2025 and to consult on the banning of horticultural peat. We are making great progress on that and working with industry. On new clause 29, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), the Government remain committed to transparency and this Bill introduces a robust framework of monitoring, planning and reporting on the impact of the Bill’s measures. In Committee, I talked over and over again about the procedures we have in place in the Bill for all that statutory cycle of monitoring, planning and reporting, and the requirement to set out interim environmental targets up to five-yearly. The Government will be required to report extensively on environmental progress.

To conclude, I wish to thank all Members who have tabled amendments and contributed to this debate. They have raised so many points and we have heard about so many passions, be it brown long-eared bats, hedgehogs, kestrels, soil, trees or peat. The vociferous and broad support across the House for the environmental agenda is wonderful to see. Harnessing this energy will drive forward our actions on the environment, enabled by the measures in this landmark Bill. I was particularly thrilled by the recent announcement setting out our actions for nature recovery, including new legally binding targets to halt nature’s decline and this forthcoming Green Paper. I believe that this legislation will be pivotal in giving us the paradigm shift we need to bring back species and habitats from the brink, to restore our depleted natural environment, to see sparkling clean waters and bathing waters we can all use and enjoy, and to ensure that UK companies play no part in illegally deforesting the lungs of the world. We will also deliver the clean air that we all deserve. I am so proud to be part of this Bill, to be part of the DEFRA team and the amazing Bill team, and to have worked with everyone across the House, including the environment Committee, to bring forward this Bill. I absolutely commend it to the House.

[Ruth Jones]

This has been an important debate, and I am grateful to all colleagues who have shared their thoughts on how we can make this Bill the strong and comprehensive piece of legislation that our environment is crying out for. As I indicated in my opening remarks, at every stage of this Bill Labour has proposed fair amendments. Disappointingly, all of them were defeated by this Minister and her Back-Bench colleagues. Not one of the amendments was partisan and not one was done to play games, but all were tabled to make this Bill fit for purpose. Today, new clauses 12 and 24 would do just that. I am also grateful to the many colleagues who put their names to our new clauses, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for her passionate speech and for her new clause 29, which has the support of those on these Benches. I support her call on the Government to put the WHO guidelines into the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and give a big, non-partisan thank you to the indefatigable hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). At this point, I wish gently to respond to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who claimed that the UK was not first to declare a climate emergency. I respectfully remind her that this Parliament was the first to declare a climate emergency, in May 2019. I should remember that, as I made my maiden speech during that debate, and let us not forget that that debate was led by Labour Members.

In moving new clauses 24 and 12, Labour has attempted to give effect to the promises made by Conservative Ministers, who are pretty good at talk, which is great, but we on the Labour Benches prefer to see action rather than words. I have heard what the Minister said—I listened to her very carefully—and I thank her for her comments, but, once again, I am disappointed. Sadly, normal service has been maintained. We have a Secretary of State who did not want to reach out and work with us to make this Bill fit for purpose.

New clause 12 is actually helpful to the Government. I know that fracking was a glaring omission, but we are trying to make sure that their forgetfulness does not result in bad policy. I especially wish to mention the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) for his passionate audition for ministerial office, but I remind him that the definition of “moratorium” is a temporary ban. If he wants to ban fracking for ever more, he should vote with us on our amendment.

I hope that the Minister will take new clause 12 in the spirit in which it was intended and accept it as an easy way of making this Bill better. I will be pushing both new clause 12 and new clause 24 to a vote. They are important issues and will fill glaring holes in this Bill.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

17:21

Division 17

Ayes: 216

---

Labour: 195
Liberal Democrat: 11
Independent: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Conservative: 1

Noes: 357

---

Conservative: 349
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published below.

New Clause 24

Prohibition on burning of peat in upland areas

(1) A person must not burn specified vegetation on land in England which is

within an upland area on peat.

(2) In this section—

“specified vegetation” means heather, rough grass, bracken, gorse or vaccinium, and

“upland area” means all the land shown coloured pink on the map marked as “Map of Upland Area in England” held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs but does not include the land coloured pink in the Isles of Scilly(a).” —(Ruth Jones.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, that the clause be read a Second time.

17:31

Division 18

Ayes: 208

---

Labour: 193
Liberal Democrat: 11
Independent: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 360

---

Conservative: 352
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Third Reading.

Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.

17:38

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

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

Of course, for this Bill, it is the third time in more ways than one. Hon. Members will recall that a similar Bill was introduced in the last Parliament, and this Bill itself started in the last Session. I thank right hon. and hon. Members across the House, particularly the members of the Public Bill Committee for their scrutiny and all those involved in the previous iteration of the Bill during the last Parliament. I pay special tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), for her tireless work on the Bill, and to all the DEFRA officials for all the work they put in to get such a significant piece of legislation to this point. It is a large and complex piece of legislation, and a huge amount of work has gone into getting its provisions right.

Members in all parts of the House agree that the decline of our natural environment has persisted for too long. As we emerge from the covid-19 pandemic, we must turn our attention to recovery. We must build back greener. The pandemic has reminded us all of the difference that nature makes to our lives. 

After G7 nations gather in Cornwall next month, the wider international community will attend the convention on biological diversity in Kunming in October, before the UK, as co-president, hosts the world at COP26 on climate change in November. This is a very important year for the environment internationally, and this landmark Environment Bill will deliver on our manifesto commitment to create the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth.

As I announced last week, the Government intend to amend the Bill in the other place to include a new, historic, legally binding target on species abundance for 2030, aiming to halt the decline of nature. This is a pioneering measure that will be the net zero equivalent for nature, spurring action on the scale required to address the biodiversity crisis. Our forthcoming Green Paper will also explore how we might deliver our world-leading domestic ambitions for nature, including how we improve the status of native species, such as the water vole and the red squirrel, and protect 30% of our land by 2030.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has ensured that the plight of the hedgehog has been greatly debated during the passage of the Bill, and the Green Paper that we plan later this year will also explore how we might better protect other species currently not protected under the habitats regulations, including the hedgehog. In a similar vein, I have asked my noble Friend Lord Benyon to chair a small working group, together with Tony Juniper, Christopher Katkowski, QC, and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane. The group will explore how our approach to conservation and habitat assessment might be improved so that we can deliver nature’s recovery and hit the ambitious targets that we are setting.

Our world-leading targets will be supported by provisions in the Bill and our new England trees and peat action plans to protect existing trees and expand woodland coverage. Our aim is to treble woodland creation rates by the end of this Parliament and to restore 35,000 hectares of peatland by 2025. Although we treasure our many species and ecosystems for their own sake and their intrinsic value, we must remember that they also provide vital services from which people benefit, such as carbon storage and pollination. As shown in the Dasgupta review, protecting and enhancing our natural assets and the biodiversity that underpins them is crucial to achieving a sustainable, resilient economy.

The Bill takes important strides in tackling air, water and waste pollution. Cleaner air from new, legally binding targets will drive action to tackle harmful air pollution across the country. Better management of our water for new drainage and sewage management plans will improve water quality in our rivers and lakes. The Bill will also give us powers to tackle storm overflows, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his efforts on that particular area of policy. We therefore intend to table an amendment in the other place requiring Government to publish plans to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows by September 2022, and for water companies and the Environment Agency to publish storm overflow operations data on an annual basis.

We are already consulting on measures to prevent waste and tackle the scourge of plastic ending up in our oceans. The extended producer responsibility scheme, which will make producers of packaging responsible for the cost of disposal, will incentivise better product design from the outset. New powers will allow us to place charges on single-use plastics, reducing their persistence in our natural environment. All of this, of course, will be underpinned by our new system of environmental governance. The Bill creates the new, independent Office for Environmental Protection to hold all public authorities to account on reaching these important goals. Work to establish the OEP is already well under way under the chairmanship of Dame Glenys Stacey and I commend the work that she has done to date.



In conclusion, I am pleased to see this Bill reach its Third Reading after a couple of attempts in previous Sessions and during the last Parliament. I am grateful for the many contributions from Members of all parties today. I believe that these provisions will ensure that this generation leaves our environment in a better state than we found it, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

16:09

[Ruth Jones]

Well, here we are: the Environment Bill has finally reached Third Reading, and we all know that it has taken some time. Talking about timings, I want to wish the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), a very happy 65th birthday, although he is not in his place, because he is a tenacious campaigner, and I have enjoyed working with him on this Bill in recent months.

The last year and a half or thereabouts since this Bill received its Second Reading in this House has been one like no other. With that in mind, I want to start by acknowledging the brilliant hard work of the staff of this House, notably the Clerks, Sarah and Joanna, and of course the staff in the parliamentary offices of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—thank you, Kieran and Rob; of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner)—thank you, Rafi; of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake)—thank you, Minesh and Sam; and of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead)—thanks to Holly and Bryn. Obviously, I also thank those of my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), and of course I must not forget my own team in Newport West—thank you very much, Adam. It has not been easy taking a major piece of legislation through the House while working from home, and our staff have been brilliant. It is important to say thank you to them because, let us be honest, where would we be without them?

This Bill creates the Office for Environmental Protection, but fails to give it the powers it needs. It creates an improvement plan, but does not go far enough. It fails, among other things, to tackle fracking, deliver a proper tree strategy and deliver proper structured chemical regulation. Labour’s amendments in Committee and on Report sought to build on the limited foundation set by the Conservative party and make this Bill properly fit for purpose. It is all very well and good to set out the problem, but if we do not match that with strong and comprehensive plans, what is the point?

I remain saddened that Conservative Members voted against Labour’s amendments at every opportunity they had in Committee and on Report, but all is not yet lost—we should not worry. I feel sure, as the Bill moves to the other place, that my noble Friends Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Hayman of Ullock will take it by the horns and make it the strong and purposeful Bill the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), could have made it here in this House.

This is not about politics. I should say to the House that the Government’s approach to this Bill sits at the door of the Secretary of State. I used to say that the Environment Bill was missing in action, but the Secretary of State was missing in action, so I am very glad he has turned up safe and sound, and I am very grateful to him for turning up. However, I thank the Minister for her personal commitment and hard work. She takes these issues very seriously, and I have enjoyed working with her. I just feel sorry that her colleagues will not let her work with us in the way I suspect she would like to.

I am grateful to the many stakeholders such as Ruth Chambers from the Green Alliance, Matt Browne from the Wildlife and Countryside Link, Jo Blackman from Global Witness, Chloe Alexander from the CHEM Trust and Andrea Lee from ClientEarth, to name just a few, for their hard work and tenacity over the last year and a bit.

The pandemic, our departure from the European Union and a general election were just some of the hurdles we have had to get over in recent months, and we have done our bit. Many in this House have raised important arguments in recent weeks and months, and will continue to do so as this Bill works its way through the other place before coming back to us. I urge the Secretary of State to do whatever he can to make sure we get the Bill back sooner rather than later. We do not have time to waste. The climate crisis worsens each day, and real action is necessary now. I urge the Secretary of State to work with us and all the Members in this House when the Bill comes back and to do whatever is required to tackle the climate and ecological emergency once and for all.

17:49

[John Redwood [V]]

I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome cleaner air and cleaner water, and I wish the Bill well as it completes its passage. I hope that we will be nicer to nature and better to the other species we share our islands with.

I would like briefly to make a few points to the Secretary of State and the ministerial team, who have worked hard to get this far. The first point is on water. I urge them to work with the water industry and the regulators to put in more reservoir capacity. We have had many homes and new families coming into my area of Wokingham and West Berkshire, but there has been no increase in potential water supply. Nationwide, we still have a rising population, and they will need good provision of clean water.

There are two great natural advantages of having more reservoir capacity. First, when we have long periods of excessive rainfall—we seem to be having one at the moment—and there is the danger of the rivers overtopping and causing flood damage, we need more good places to park the water, and we could then recharge the extra reservoir capacity. Secondly, were we once again to have one of those long, hot summers with long dry spells, as we have had from time to time in the past, we would be able to draw down in more comfort, knowing that we had adequate reservoir capacity, without having to run the streams and rivers too low or draw excessively on the natural aquifers.

On Report, I talked about the excellent news that there will be many more trees and urged Ministers to ensure that they help to build a much bigger forestry and timber industry. We import far too much and need to replace it with home production and fewer wood miles. I also urge the Secretary of State to bring forward those great schemes to promote more food production here at home. We lost too much market share, particularly in areas such as vegetables and fruit, in our CAP days. I do not think it is morally right to be drawing so much of that food from a country such as Spain, which is parched and in great difficulties eking out its inadequate water supplies, when we have plenty of water at home and could do so much more to promote a good domestic industry, cutting the food miles and giving confidence in the environmental benefits of having the home product.

I would also like to draw Ministers’ attention to the unresolved business that they have promised to work on as we complete this piece of legislation: the possible conflict between the Office for Environmental Protection and the Climate Change Committee. I urge Ministers to recognise that they need to supervise both bodies and give them clear public guidance on their remits. The Government will need to bring forward that piece of work to explain what the relative roles of the two are and how the different sets of targets—the natural UK targets on the one hand and the climate change targets on the other—will knit together and be compatible, rather than cause tensions.

For example, we need to know what the thinking is about the pace of carbon dioxide reduction and transition and how that impacts on our natural landscape, because if we are going to accelerate the move from electric vehicles or gas boilers or both, there will need to be massive investment. That investment includes the production of a lot of steel, glass and batteries. Mining activity somewhere is required to produce those raw materials and fashion them into something that can then be part of an electric product. We need to know whether we will be doing any of that in the UK, or whether the idea is that we should import much of it because we do not wish to husband our own natural resources for this purpose. If we are going to import, we should properly account for it, because it is not helping the planet if we say, “Well, we’re not putting the mine here or burning the coal to smart the steel here,” but it is happening somewhere else—indeed, it may be happening somewhere else where environmental concerns are taken much less seriously and the environmental damage of producing that product is far greater than if we had done it at home.

I hope that more work will be published on the pace and cost of transition. Again, the Bill seems to point us more in the direction of repair, maintenance, recycling and reuse, and not wanting a throwaway society but reckoning that, if we make good things, they could last for rather longer. How is that reconciled with the idea that we want a rapid transition to get rid of our existing fleet of petrol and diesel vehicles and to rip out all our gas boilers and solid fuel heating systems? Has there been proper carbon accounting on all that, and how is that reconciled with the very good aim in this Bill that we must consider the impact on our earth and the amount that we take out of our earth in order to fashion the things we may need?

There is a lot of work ahead for Ministers, who have already been very busy. As others have said, the Bill is only the first step, and it will then need to be fashioned into popular products and feasible programmes: things that business will want to collaborate with and things that people will want to do. There is an educational process involved. We also need to ensure that we know what the costs are and that they are realistic, that they are phased and that they fall fairly. I would still like to hear more from the Government on the total cost of all this work, because we need to ensure that it is realistic, that it does not get in the way of levelling up and greater prosperity, and that it reinforces our prime agenda, which is the health and welfare of the British people.

17:55

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

Very briefly, I would like to thank DEFRA officials and particularly the Clerks on the Committee for their help during the progress of the Bill. It has threatened to rival “The Mousetrap” for longevity, and their staying power was quite something in the face of that. The ministerial team who managed to take so long over the thing do not get quite so much gratitude, though. I would also like to thank my researchers, Calum and Josh, whose assistance has been invaluable, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who participated alongside me in the Environment Bill Committee.

It is worth stating again that this legislation is a missed opportunity, and it will have to be revisited again and again in the near future to add in the bits that are so clearly missing. Despite the Minister’s brave efforts over the many months to defend it, the Bill is not much at all. Although it will pass today, only crumbs are being proffered. I look forward in my capacity as environment and COP26 spokesperson for the SNP to continuing to challenge the Government to ensure that they match their warm words with firm actions that will make a real difference, particularly in the year that the UK hosts COP26. Our world’s future deserves nothing less.

17:57

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Almost two years ago to the day, Parliament declared a climate emergency. Two years ago! The last four years were the hottest on record, one in seven native British species are now at risk of extinction and tree planting targets are missed by 50%. Some 60% of people in England are now breathing illegally poor air, and 44% of species have been in decline over the last 10 years. We could all go on; we all know what the situation is. Is this Bill up to it? I do not think it is, and I am disappointed by that.

People in Putney, Southfields and Roehampton are very interested in the environment and in making a difference. They have joined an environment commission that I have set up, and they are taking action in local communities and also globally. I also think of the other communities around the world that are affected by the decisions we are making today, including the community in Bangladesh that I visited when I worked for WaterAid. We had to get there by plane—there were no roads to get there—and I sat around with a group of women whose whole area had been completely decimated and become saline. They could not grow any crops and they had to walk miles and miles to get fresh water. They were stuck there, having been really decimated by climate change, and we face that here. We have a responsibility to that community as well as to all our communities across the country.

So here we are, 482 days after the Bill was first introduced to Parliament, with a Bill that still fails adequately to address this climate emergency. It fails to guarantee no regression from the environmental measures that were in place when we were members of the European Union. I was so disappointed that the Government could not agree to that when we were in Committee. We could have drawn a line and said, “That’s our baseline; we’re going to get better from there.” Instead, the Government did not agree even to measure that.

The Government have failed to put World Health Organisation air quality targets into the Bill. The Bill fails to reduce disposable nappy use, and I am glad I share an interest in that with other Members of the House. It fails to make enough meaningful change. It fails on marine conservation and ocean preservation. It fails on green homes. Only a few weeks ago, the Government scrapped the green homes grant, yet they are bringing in an Environment Bill.

The Bill fails on trees and bees—we all love bees; I know the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), loves the bees, as do many of my constituents. There is no detailed plan to meet net zero carbon emissions targets. The starting point should have been how we work to get up to there.

Above all, the Bill fails on strong enforcement. I think that is its weakest point. It delivers an Office for Environmental Protection with no teeth: it is not independent, it is resistant to concrete protections and it has a reduced remit. During the Bill’s passage, the Government reduced the remit of the watchdog, guardian and enforcer of the Bill. The Bill leaves our environment exposed to be used as a bargaining chip in trade agreements. It delivers legally binding targets that will not bite for two decades and that the Secretary of State has near complete discretion to change at any time. Marking our own homework will not lead to the change we need.

The Government, I am afraid, are ducking their responsibilities with the Bill. They have refused to listen to me, very learned and expert colleagues or the many civil society organisations that have fed in and pointed out time and again where the Bill needs to improve. Yet again, the Government have failed to agree to amendments today.

We are living in an imminent and real climate and environmental crisis. We will only solve it by working together, by listening to all voices and by all agreeing that we need the prize of climate change. We can only do that together, but my experience on the Environment Bill Committee confirmed to me that the Government have no interest in that. Amendment after amendment was put forward, all of which would have hugely strengthened the Bill, and the Government did not want to know. Any headlines today about changes of mind the Government may have had on amendments would have been immediately forgotten, because another event was going on this morning that has taken all the headlines, but it could have been done. We now have to hope that the other place will take up the mantle and agree to many of the excellent amendments and changes that we have proposed to the Bill.

The Government’s intransigence will cost future generations dear, but what are the next steps? It must be a global Bill. We must have joined-up Government. It cannot just be this small pot of legislation. For example, the G7 negotiations over vaccines must work to ensure that developing countries come to COP26 and that the whole process works. It has to join up through the year. We have to stop the cuts to international climate aid to countries around the world which undermine efforts we might take here to reduce our carbon emissions, and this must not be undermined by the upcoming planning legislation.

To summarise, this Bill will go down as a historic missed opportunity. I welcome the concessions that have been made, but they have taken too long and are piecemeal measures compared with the enormity of what is required to tackle the climate emergency. My constituents and I hope to be proved wrong. I hope that the Office for Environmental Protection gets some teeth from somewhere and does make a change, and that we see targets that are really achieved, but at the moment I am feeling, along with my constituents, very disappointed.

00:05

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I put on record my thanks and pay tribute to the officials and Clerks who have been involved throughout this whole lengthy process. I will not be churlish; I will say thanks to the Ministers as well. Whether we agree with everything in the Bill or not, it is a tough job to pilot a Bill, particularly over the period of time we have been discussing it in this place.

I suspect, as the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said, that this is not the last we will hear of this, because I think our friends in the other place may have a thing or two to say about the Bill and seek to strengthen what, in principle at least, is not a bad Bill. There are plenty of things in it where there is great consensus and where we can agree. I shall focus on three areas where I do not agree so much. In particular, I will focus on my concerns about where the Bill is good in theory, but may be very weak in practice. Those concerns relate to regulation, the delivery of environmental goods through land management, and our ability to control and protect local environments.

First, on regulation, I am greatly concerned that the Office for Environmental Protection looks to be a relatively weak watchdog with few teeth and whose key figures are to be directly appointed by the Government. It will be funded by and not sufficiently independent from Government. It will therefore always be considered to be speaking with some level of restriction. The power, independence and penalties available to it do not look anything like as strong as what we had before we left the European Union. We could have easily been able to match that level of independence and robustness. The protections and firewalls have not been put in, so I fear very much that we will have perhaps great policies, poorly regulated.

Nothing highlights that more than the current discussion we are having about the potential Australian trade deal. If we are deeply committed to protecting almost uniquely high-level British animal welfare and environmental standards, how can we go ahead and do a deal with a country with significantly lower environmental and animal welfare standards? That surely undermines our ability to enact those standards throughout the whole United Kingdom and undermines British farming. British farming is the best in the world. We say that a lot, don’t we? It is important to understand why it is the best in the world. It is the best because of the regulation, but it is the best mostly because of our culture of the family farm and the unit of the family farm, which means we have close husbandry—almost hefted human beings, never mind hefted Herdwicks.

That is of massive importance to my second area of concern. Poor protections that would allow a trade deal with Australia could be a precedent for trade deals with other countries that undercut the quality of British produce and undermine British farmers. The concern is about not just weak regulation and a lack of independence, rigour and sanctions in that regulation, but the delivery of environmental goods through land management. The amendment in my name that I spoke to earlier is about ensuring that environmental land management schemes include significant and adequate rewards for maintaining the aesthetics and the beauty, as well as the biodiversity, of our landscape. That is crucial, but so far it is missing. Mr Deputy Speaker, I worry about your constituency, mine and many like them. They are absolutely natural environments, but they are managed, crafted landscapes that have been worked by our farmers over centuries. They are as beautiful as they are because they are managed. If we have a situation where they are not rewarded through the new scheme directly for the preservation of those landscapes, the risk to the world heritage site status of the Lake District is there, the risk to our tourism economy is there and the risk to biodiversity is there.

I would add that the Government’s movement towards ELM, which in theory we are all in favour of, is potentially risky because they are insisting on phasing out the basic payment scheme much more quickly than they are going to bring in ELM. That will leave upland farmers, for example, losing half their income in the next few years. Many of them will leave the industry. Indeed, the Government wish to facilitate them leaving the industry through the retirement package they announced last week, but they have no plans to bring anybody new and young into the industry to replace them. As they preside over the closure of Newton Rigg College in Penrith, for example, where are we getting our young farmers from to deliver these environmental goods? All the best environmental policies in the world are meaningless if we do not have the hands to enact them. It is like the England manager Gareth Southgate drawing a fantastic strategy in the dressing room and then having no players on the pitch. The danger is that the Environment Bill may be a great strategy, but with no players on the pitch we will not score any goals.

My third and final concern is that, when we look at the Government’s plan for local nature resource strategies, it is a good plan and it is a weak plan. There is no mechanism to ensure that those strategies have any impact on decision making locally. That is of particular relevance, given the Government’s plans to undermine planning, democracy and local communities, and to surrender the local environment to developers without proper accountability. In a community such as mine that depends so much on the beauty of our environment, that is a danger. The average number of homes built in a new development is usually fewer than 50 and the Government are looking to give developers the opportunity to do pretty much what they like up to a development of that size.

Put together, all those things draw a picture of a Bill that is broadly well-intentioned and does a lot of good, but, when it comes down to it, it does not provide itself with the mechanisms to actually deliver what it says in the first place. Good in principle—weak in practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Sanctions

That the Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No, 488), dated 23 April 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26 April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(David T.C. Davies.)

Question agreed to.

Voter ID

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

18:09

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition. Several of my constituents have recently been in contact about their concerns about the British Government’s proposed legislation for voter ID. I therefore rise to present this petition on behalf of my Glasgow East constituents who wish to see the Government abandon plans to introduce voter ID.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the Glasgow East constituency,

Declares that the current statistics on voter fraud show that it is incredibly rare and that this is no widespread problem across the UK, thus voter ID requirements are a solution in search of a problem; further that the only type of fraud that photographic voter IDs could prevent is voter impersonation, which is even more rare each year; further that this legislation has been described as draconian, archaic and anti-democratic as it puts a qualification on the franchise; further that the real consequence of this legislation will be this Government suppressing voting among lower income, ethnic minority, and younger people, all of whom are less likely to vote for the party now in Government; further that, in contrast to this archaic Government, the SNP Government in Holyrood is focused on measures to extend the franchise and encourage turnout; further that the SNP has already introduced votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, refugees, and foreign nationals with leave to remain; and further that voting should be made as easy as possible with no barrier to contributing to democracy.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to dismiss any plans to implement legislation that enforces voter IDs.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002666]

Transit Site: Walsall

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—(David T.C. Davies.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With the permission of Valerie Vaz, could we have the Government Dispatch Box cover cleaned while Valerie Vaz is on her feet, and the Minister will not touch the Dispatch Box until then?

18:11

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Speaker for granting this very important Adjournment debate about the choice of Narrow Lane as a transit site in my constituency. Narrow Lane is one of the oldest historically identifiable places in the neighbourhood of Pleck in Walsall. It currently includes a vacant site, which recently has been used for a neighbourhood office and a small home for the elderly. The site is surrounded by a densely populated and densely developed residential and commercial area and stands at the junction of two very busy major roads.

Along with thousands of local residents, I was flabbergasted when Walsall Council decided to choose this site for development as a temporary Gypsy, Roma and Traveller transit site. How the council made that decision and why goes to the very heart of why residents and voters feel that they are ignored and trampled over by politicians who refuse to include local communities in decisions that affect their lives. I know that the Minister will have a lot more representatives beating at his door with the planning Bill for very similar reasons. Not only has the decision-making process been completely flawed, but the site is environmentally unsuitable for a Travellers site because of severe air pollution issues, which would place serious health risks on children and families living in vehicles and caravans.

On behalf of the people of Pleck and the wider Walsall community, I want to persuade the Minister to do something about this, to launch an investigation into the decision-making process by Walsall Council, and to request Walsall Council to withdraw the current planning application and revisit its decision to place a transit site at Narrow Lane.

This is not about local residents rejecting the GRT community; on the contrary, it is about supporting my constituents and supporting the GRT community to ensure that the most suitable site is chosen in Walsall if one is required. It is also about preventing serious health issues for children and families who are already subject to poor health outcomes in comparison with the population generally.

Why did Narrow Lane appear from nowhere to be the council’s choice for the GRT transit site? The council had already identified and approved sufficient new Travellers sites to accommodate a transit site proposal. The Walsall borough site allocation document, which I will refer to as the SAD, was only recently approved by the planning inspector, in 2019. The proposals for new Travellers sites were presented to the public and the stakeholders for consultation, approved by Walsall Council and finally approved by the planning inspector.

The SAD is Walsall Council’s key land use document. It identifies sites that can be developed for new Travellers sites: Willenhall Lane caravan site, two pitches; the rear of 48 to 72 Foster Street, Blakenall, three pitches; and Dolphin Close, Goscote, 10 pitches. Dolphin Close is identified as particularly suitable because integration with the local community would be helped by the presence of a

“large GT community in bricks and mortar housing nearby”.

There is no distinction in the SAD on whether their use should be as a permanent site or a transit site. I have visited Dolphin Close. It is tranquil; it overlooks the canal and has open space. It has cleaner air for children to breathe, is close to a primary school, has road links nearby in every direction, and the Traveller community has settled links in the local community that will encourage community cohesion. There is a reason why Dolphin Close was identified as recently as 2019: it is the most suitable larger site in the borough, whether for permanent or transit pitches.

Legal opinion confirms that the decision taken by Walsall Council’s cabinet was flawed. It failed to take steps to properly inform itself; it took into account irrelevant considerations; and there was apparent bias. Regarding the council’s failure to take reasonable steps to inform itself, it could have looked at the relevant materials, in particular the SAD—the key land use document, which should have been central to the decision on where the site should be allocated and which had been the subject of extensive consultation. Yet no explanation or consideration was given to why the three sites identified in the SAD, which were capable of satisfying the more demanding criteria for permanent sites, were not considered.

What about consultation? The council designated this as a key decision—a very important one with significant financial or community impact. Article 11 of the council’s rules states that all decisions of the council have to be made in accordance with principles that include due consultation and a presumption in favour of openness. There was a working group, which met two representatives of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups and fifteen other people, mostly council employees. There was no wider consultation, and a host of other stakeholders, including the people who live nearby and even the democratically elected Member of Parliament and councillors, were not consulted. There was no list of potential sites.

As it is a departure from the widely consulted-on SAD, the council should have consulted on the Narrow Lane site and any other potential sites that were considered but not identified in the SAD, on the grounds of fairness, transparency and good administration. The issue was raised by local resident Shakil Younis, who told the council’s scrutiny committee:

“Wolverhampton City Council have got a similar project that they’re doing with their transit site; what they did was a public consultation. They invited all the people directly affected by these proposals and they sat down and had a discussion with them. But what have Walsall Council done? Nothing. we’ve not even had a letter, nothing. we mean nothing to them, just got to pay Council Tax .

Also at a meeting of the scrutiny committee, a council officer said that

“it is absolutely right to say that there was no direct consultation around this site”.

The council will say that it will consult on the planning application that was made on 19 March, but section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 says that the planning committee is unlikely to consider site selection. That consultation will not address the issue of how Narrow Lane has been chosen; and whether there are more suitable sites that were overlooked or rejected.

What about the other criticisms—failing to take into account relevant considerations and taking into account irrelevant considerations? It is unclear why the existing criteria in the SAD were not used. If there were new criteria, there should have been a wider consultation process. It is not clear who drew up the criteria set out in appendix A of the council’s report to the cabinet or how they were settled on. No explanation has been given of how those criteria are applied as part of the desktop review. 

The refined set of criteria has not been disclosed to residents or councillors and is unexplained. There is no evidence that cabinet members themselves were presented with the refined set of criteria or an explanation for its use and how that affected the choice of Narrow Lane. That prompts questions of what the criteria were, how they were formulated, how many development sites they were applied to, how they were applied, and why Narrow Lane emerged as the only suitable site to put to cabinet.  

In Bushell v. the Secretary of State for the Environment, fairness was said to require disclosure of sufficient information about the reasons relied on by a public authority so that members of the public can challenge the accuracy of any facts and the validity of the arguments. Decisions based on undisclosed policies or criteria may be unlawful. Is the Minister going to say that that is acceptable?  

Why were environmental and health factors not taken into account by the cabinet in the decision? The Minister will know about a landmark case that established that air pollution from an adjacent road was a material cause of the death of nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah.  Walsall Council appears to have given no consideration to the implications of that case for any children who will be affected by the decision. The Narrow Lane site is adjacent to the junction of Darlaston Road and Old Pleck Road, two busy A roads with signal controlled traffic. The Narrow Lane site suffers from extremely poor air quality—a criterion Walsall Council stipulated must be used in determining that locations/sites are not suitable for Travellers’ sites.  

Walsall Council’s own document “Air Quality—Walsall Nitrogen Dioxide Areas of Exceedance 2020” clearly identifies the junction and area surrounding Pleck as a nitrogen dioxide exceedance area. I raised that in a letter to the chief executive on 9 February, but received no response. The headteacher of the local primary school, Lynne Cherry, also raised that issue at the scrutiny meeting. She said:

“I do think the site is a poor site; I know for a fact how busy the roads are around there, I know how poor the air quality is and also how fast the roads are because the emergency vehicles will go to the Manor Hospital; it is really dangerous.” 

Dr Hesham, who also gave evidence to the scrutiny committee, commented: 

“The effect on children is particularly significant. The vast majority of children in hospital present with infections and the majority of those infections are respiratory infections, infecting the heart and the lungs in upper airways”.  

The report that went to cabinet claims in paragraph 4.34 that key council priorities for children will be met by the proposal for a Travellers site at Narrow Lane. Yet there are no comments or input from the director of children’s services in the report to justify that bold statement. Where does the director notify the cabinet that she supports families and children living in caravans and vehicles at a polluted junction of two busy main roads?  She does not.  No reasonable or responsible director of children’s services would.  

The cabinet report also claims that the health priorities of the council will be met. Where is the data on air quality and air pollution at this busy junction? The council identified this spot as suffering from poor air quality. A reasonable portfolio holder would be very concerned about housing children in a polluted environment when cleaner alternatives are available.  Where are the director of public health’s comments and analysis of the Narrow Lane site?  There are none. 

The report claims improved health for children living next to a busy road junction. Where is the evidence?  The council employs experts for public health and children’s services. Their analysis, based on data and real evidence, and their opinion and recommendations must form—and should have formed—an integral part of such a report. That is shockingly absent. There was no consideration of air quality and no evidence of an air quality assessment.

Sadly, in press reports, the children and families who would use a new Travellers site for transit purposes were described as “renegades” by members of Walsall’s cabinet. However, I did not think I would see in 2021 Traveller families being deliberately housed in an unhealthy environment, subject to poor air quality and pollution, when there is a perfectly viable alternative available and agreed upon.   

Turning now to bias, what would a reasonable or informed observer conclude? Councillor Adrian Andrew was the portfolio holder for regeneration and is deputy leader of Walsall Council, and the report went to the cabinet in his name and was presented by him. As confirmed by his entry in the council’s register of interests, he worked for the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who is aware, as I have told him, that I am mentioning his name in this debate. That is what was on the council’s website and what was held out to the public. That was until, at the scrutiny committee meeting, in response to the suggestion that this affected Councillor Andrew’s decision making, as the three sites identified in the SAD for the future Traveller sites but not chosen by the cabinet were all found in Walsall North, he said, “This is not true.” At the scrutiny committee meeting, the leader of the council said that he had this information in his pocket for eight months. That was not disclosed, yet the requirement under the members’ code of conduct, at paragraph 2.1(3), requires members to disclose this to the monitoring officer within 28 days of the change.

Within days, Councillor Andrew amended his entry in the register of interests to state that he is employed as the campaign manager for the Conservative party, although he has not included the fact, as confirmed on his LinkedIn profile, that this is for Walsall North and Walsall South. The fact that the three sites designated in the SAD were in Walsall North could lead to an informed observer thinking that the cabinet’s minds were closed to alternatives because they did not serve their party political agenda. The fact that we now know that Councillor Andrew is paid by the Conservative party to further its interests in the locality of the Narrow Lane site and in Walsall places an even greater question mark over the issue of bias in the making of this decision.

But there were other inconsistent matters raised at the cabinet meeting. Councillor Andrew said the Narrow Lane site was suitable as it was “near to motorways.” He appears to be completely unaware that air pollution is a criterion that must be used in determining suitable Traveller sites, despite this being Walsall Council policy. Councillor Perry said that the transit site option should not be rushed into:

“Legislation is changing and it’s going to change again, which will give further protective powers to the authority and to the police.”

I agree. Rushing into the transit site option is exactly what Walsall Council is doing, with the application put on an expedited timescale in time for the summer: not only that, but rushing through a decision at the height of the pandemic lockdown, when it would be far more difficult for residents to express their opinions or hold the cabinet to account. Councillor Bird concluded at the cabinet meeting:

“It may be and has proven to be the case in Sandwell, where the temporary transit site has never been used, because the travellers know that if they go into Sandwell, they will be directed to that site and they don’t want to do that.”

So the leader of Walsall Council believes that the transit site may never even be used by the GRT community in Walsall, and yet approved a budget of £160,000 for the construction of the site before consulting with residents in the area. He thinks that the transit site may act as a deterrent for Travellers entering into Walsall, which undermines his very claim that this site is being proposed in the best interests of the GRT community.

What does this tell us about the governance at Walsall Council? I would suggest that the Minister, if he could, view the proceedings of the scrutiny committee, which resulted from a call-in by Councillor Aftab Nawaz and ward councillors Harbans Sarohi, Khizar Hussain and Naheed Gultasib. All our councillors must abide by the Nolan principles of behaviour in public life when making decisions. The focus is on objectivity, openness and transparency. By law, the scrutiny committee’s purpose is to act as a check and balance on the cabinet of Walsall Council, not a rubber stamp. Members of a scrutiny committee must adopt an independent mindset. Members must put aside the natural impulse to support decisions made by their own party. The way that the scrutiny committee examined this matter does not bear out these principles at all.

I call on the Minister to carry out an investigation into the way that Walsall Council made its decisions and, in particular, the decision to place a GRT transit site at Narrow Lane. The reasons are compelling and can be summarised as follows: flawed decision making that did not take into account relevant considerations and took into account irrelevant considerations; failure of the council to take reasonable steps to inform itself; hidden conflicts of interests; failures by members to declare relevant pecuniary interests and to maintain the Nolan principles; perceived bias of key decision makers; lack of scrutiny of cabinet decisions; and a failure to abide by statutory guidelines.

I know that the Minister, who is a straightforward person, will look at the facts. My constituents, the residents of Pleck, have had their rights trampled on. The selection of the site was wrong and the planning application should be withdrawn. I am confident that the Minister will come to the right conclusion and intervene with an investigation into this erroneous decision of Walsall Council. I will be very pleased to meet him to discuss this urgently.

18:29

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on securing this debate, about a town that is close to my heart; it is the town of my birth. I know that the matter is of great importance to the right hon. Lady as she has brought it to my attention and that of my Department previously.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the planning deal. The Government are committed to providing the homes that our country needs, and in this debate we have an excellent opportunity to discuss how all groups in the community, including Gypsies, can have their needs met. In terms of the overall issue raised regarding local authority conduct, I am sure that the right hon. Lady understands that Ministers, rightly, have limited remit to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of local authorities, and clearly it is not appropriate for a Minister such as me to comment on specific planning cases or on the local plan, because of the quasi-judicial role that I fulfil. Given that the proposed transit site is subject to obtaining planning permission, and that the decision on the planning application has not yet been made, I would encourage her to continue her discussions directly with the local authority, because the decision, whatever it may be, is subject to the obtaining of planning permission, and therefore interested parties—I am sure that she has encouraged interested parties to express their view—have been able, and are able, to offer their view.

However, if the right hon. Lady considers that there are grounds for complaint against the council, I would direct her to the council’s own complaints procedure and suggest that she continues to use her voice in this House. She has used privilege, as we are all able to do, to raise a concern that she has about bias and a specific councillor in Walsall. I would say, by the bye, that Councillor Andrews is, I believe, councillor for Pheasey Park Farm, which is a ward not in Walsall North but in her Walsall South constituency.

In planning for Traveller sites, the Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates the nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of local residents. The evidence is clear. Gypsies, Roma and Travellers face some very considerable challenges—a matter that the Government take very seriously. That is why we wish to encourage local authorities to make their own assessments of need for Travellers, and to have in place local plans to meet that need, in the same way as they plan for all forms of housing. Such plans should identify sites to meet need and contain criteria-based policies to guide decisions on applications that come forth. The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to make decisions about the number and location of such sites, and to ensure that they are sustainable environmentally, economically and socially, including consideration of the health and wellbeing of Travellers that may locate there.

Through an increase in the provision of both permanent and transit sites in appropriate locations and with planning permission, the Government trust that local authorities will be able to reduce the occurrence of unauthorised encampments in their local area. We have a proud record: the number of authorised transit sites provided by local authorities had increased to 356 locations in England and Wales as of January 2020. That is an increase of over 41% since the previous decade. Through a written ministerial statement in February 2019, we reminded local planning authorities—of course, that includes Walsall—of their duties to assess the need for sites and make transit sites available. Through our affordable homes programme, we are investing £11.5 billion in affordable housing over the next five years—the largest investment in over a decade. As part of this, local authorities and registered providers, including housing associations, can bid for funding for permanent and transit sites. Some excellent permanent and transit sites have been built and managed by councils and housing associations. I encourage more authorities to bid for funding, and I encourage the right hon. Lady to encourage Walsall to bid for such funding.

The right hon. Lady raised the issue of consultation. Effective consultation is, of course, essential when considering any planning application, because it enables local authorities to identify and consider all the relevant issues associated with a proposed development. In this particular case, the application was lodged on 24 March, and local residents and others have an opportunity to consult the council.

As is the case for all planning applications, applications for Traveller sites must, except in exceptional circumstances, be determined in accordance with the local authority’s development plan and other relevant considerations. Local opposition or support is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, but a consideration that needs to be taken into account alongside many others. Of course, the ultimate decision on the weight given to different considerations for any planning application rests with the local authority, which considers each application on its merits.

In advance of an authority making a decision on a planning application, there is an opportunity for any third party to request a call-in of the application for the Secretary of State’s own determination. Generally, the Secretary of State will only consider whether a call-in is appropriate once an application has completed the local planning process and if the local authority is minded to approve it. Call-in powers, as many right hon. and hon. Members in this place will know—to their, I suppose, great sadness—are essentially only used if issues of more than local importance are involved. As the case that the right hon. Lady raises has not yet been approved or rejected by Walsall Council, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to intervene in these circumstances.

The Government recognise that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities are among the most disadvantaged in British society; that was highlighted by the Government’s race disparity audit in 2017. Further steps are now being taken through a new and ambitious cross-Government strategy to improve opportunities across a range of measures, including housing, health and education. In developing the strategy, which we will publish soon, we are determined to address the disparities that we know some people continue to face

During the pandemic, which the right hon. Lady mentioned, the Government have invested £400,000 in education and training programmes for more than 100 Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children and young people so that they can receive extra tuition to catch up on lost learning, one-to-one support and expert guidance to help them to progress in education or find employment. We have invested £23.75 million in the community champions scheme to work with the communities—including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities—most at risk of covid-19. That is in addition to the £700 million package announced in February by the Department for Education for the expansion of one-to-one and small- group tutoring programmes, as well as to support the development of disadvantaged children in early years settings and summer provision for those pupils who need it most. I know that the challenges facing the education of Traveller children are of concern to the right hon. Lady and to many Members from all parties, including my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who has also raised the matter with me.

The adequate provision of sites, including transit sites, is likely to have a direct effect on reducing the occurrence of unauthorised encampments, which can cause harm and misery to those affected by them and can be costly and time-consuming for landowners who have to move and then clean them up afterwards. They also all too often give an unfair and unkind image of the majority of Travellers who abide by and respect the law.

Unauthorised encampments also fuel increased tensions between the Travellers and local residents, working against the creation of the sort of happy and cohesive communities that we aspire to achieve—an issue also raised with me by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald). That is why our manifesto committed to tackling unauthorised Traveller camps by giving police new powers to arrest and seize the property and vehicles of trespassers, making intentional trespass a criminal offence, and giving councils greater powers in the planning system. To that end, in March my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced to Parliament a Bill that will make intentional unauthorised trespass that criminal offence in certain circumstances, including where the trespass has caused or is likely to cause significant damage and disruption or distress. I hope that will be of some benefit and interest to the right hon. Lady’s constituents.

The steps we are taking to tackle unauthorised encampments will complement the ongoing work of my own Department and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), to strengthen councils’ planning enforcement powers to tackle unauthorised developments, which will be introduced as part of our wider planning reforms.

Once more, I congratulate the right hon. Lady on contributing to this debate so powerfully, eloquently and passionately on behalf of her constituents. I hope it is clear from what I have said that we are committed to delivering a planning system that works for all groups in society. We are taking strong action to improve opportunities for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, who are among the United Kingdom’s most disadvantaged. We are taking steps to increase the provision of transit sites and thus reduce the number of unauthorised sites. Where some Travellers break the rules, we are putting in place tough measures to prevent and deter unauthorised sites, which are, as I say, to the detriment both of local residents and of the Travellers themselves. We are proud of our record of increasing the number of authorised transit sites and will continue to encourage the provision of sufficient and appropriate sites in appropriate locations for the travelling community. We remain committed to delivering a fair planning system in which the needs of all groups in the community are met. On that note, I congratulate the right hon. Lady again and hope that I have gone some way to affirming her support for our general policies.

Question put and agreed to.

00:05

House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

Member eligible for proxy vote	Nominated proxy
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con)	Chris Elmore
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)	Sammy Wilson
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)	Mr William Wragg
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)	Ben Everitt
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)	Sammy Wilson
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)	Ben Lake
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)	Stuart Andrew
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)	Wendy Chamberlain
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Con)	Owen Thompson
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)	Stuart Andrew
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)	Sammy Wilson
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)	Ben Lake
Neil Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)	Kenny MacAskill
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
John Howell (Henley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)	Sammy Wilson
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)	Owen Thompson
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)	Sammy Wilson
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)	Peter Aldous
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)	Sammy Wilson
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)	Ben Lake
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)	Mark Harper
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Hywel Williams (Arfon) PC)	Ben Lake
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)	Wendy Chamberlain
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)	Chris Elmore

Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors: Code of Practice) Order 2021 Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2021 Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2021 Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations: Code of Practice) Order 2021 Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Recovery of Listed Assets: Code of Practice) Order 2021

Wednesday 26th May 2021 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: †Clive Efford

Bryant, Chris (Rhondda) (Lab)

† Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)

† Elmore, Chris (Ogmore) (Lab)

† Foster, Kevin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)

Harris, Rebecca (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Holmes, Paul (Eastleigh) (Con)

Jarvis, Dan (Barnsley Central) (Lab)

McCabe, Steve (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)

† McGinn, Conor (St Helens North) (Lab)

Mak, Alan (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Mann, Scott (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Morris, James (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Pursglove, Tom (Corby) (Con)

Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)

Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Yasin, Mohammad (Bedford) (Lab)

George Wilson, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 26 May 2021

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors: Code of Practice) Order 2021

09:25

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and sit in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee unless Members are speaking or they are medically exempt. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors: Code of Practice) Order 2021.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2021, the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2021, the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations: Code of Practice) Order 2021 and the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Recovery of Listed Assets: Code of Practice) Regulations 2021.

[Kevin Foster]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Taking wide-ranging action to crack down on crime and make our communities safer is top of the Government’s agenda. One important part of that mission is our drive to stay one step ahead of criminals seeking to move, hide or use the proceeds of their illegal activities and to frustrate attempts by law enforcement agencies to recover them.

The Criminal Finances Act 2017 was introduced to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and to improve significantly the UK’s ability to trace and recover the proceeds of crime effectively. The Criminal Finances Act has not been fully commenced, though, in Northern Ireland. Some aspects of it—the counter-terrorist financing and tax evasion provisions—were commenced, but provisions with devolved elements, primarily those pertaining to asset recovery, are still outstanding.

Members of the Committee may recall that the Northern Ireland Assembly was dissolved during the passage of the Criminal Finances Bill, meaning that it was not possible to secure a legislative consent motion in Northern Ireland. It was decided that the provisions that related to devolved matters should remain in the Bill, and at the time the Government indicated to Parliament that they would not commence provisions on matters devolved to Northern Ireland without the appropriate consent having been obtained first.

Following the reconstitution of the Assembly, I am pleased to advise the Committee that, even in the absence of a mechanism to seek legislative consent in retrospect, Northern Ireland’s Justice Minister agreed that the outstanding powers should be commenced on behalf of the all-party Executive. After engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive Committee and the Justice Committee, and advising all Northern Ireland Assembly Members, she asked the Home Secretary to commence the relevant provisions. We plan to commence the powers on 28 June 2021.

I am therefore pleased to introduce the draft instruments that we are debating today, which form part of the package of legislation required to complete commencement of the provisions in Northern Ireland. The draft instruments will each bring one of five distinct codes of practice into force. Each of the five codes of practice has been revised to reflect the extension of the Criminal Finances Act powers to Northern Ireland. Some further minor amendments, for clarity only, have also been made.

The measures before us do not alter the powers available; they only clarify the relevant codes of practice in the light of the extension of outstanding Criminal Finances Act 2017 powers to Northern Ireland, which must be done by affirmative statutory instruments in this instance. I hope that they will be uncontroversial, and commend them to the Committee.

09:29

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to speak for the official Opposition on this important set of orders, which, as we have heard, have the shared purpose of bringing into force five updated Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 codes of practice, reflecting the extension of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 provisions to Northern Ireland.

I want to make it clear from the outset, not unexpectedly, that we fully support today’s orders. The wider provisions are about dealing with serious criminality, and deterring individuals from stepping into it, notably by confiscating their ill-gotten proceeds of crime, and enabling money laundering and terrorist financing to be better tackled. It is welcome that Northern Ireland is now finally able to access the full stretch of Criminal Finances Act powers that have been available to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors elsewhere in the UK for some time.

It is good to see that the provisions of the orders have gained consent from the Northern Ireland Assembly in the somewhat unusual retrospective way that we have discussed, and gained support from the Minister of Justice, Naomi Long. I understand that she initially asked for the powers to be extended back in June 2020, so could the Under-Secretary explain why there was a delay, and whether there were specific reasons for that?

The Opposition support the orders, but I am sure that the Minister will understand that I have several questions, which I hope he can address. As always, in these strange times, given the absence of officials, I am very happy for him to write to me if he cannot answer all of my questions now.

Can the Minister update the Committee on how the Criminal Finances Act 2017 is operating across the UK? Are law enforcement agencies happy with it? Are they being given the tools, resources and training needed to engage fully with it? Is the legislation meeting its full potential? Is it having an impact? I note that the Treasury’s money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessment, published six months ago in December 2020, commented that such illicit activity had only increased—a worrying conclusion.

Can the Minister say how many unexplained wealth orders have been issued? My understanding is that the answer is only four, which seems at first sight relatively few. I noted in the debate on the orders in the other place that Baroness Williams was questioned on Sir Craig Mackey’s independent review of serious and organised crime. Bar the executive summary that we have seen, that review remains unpublished. It includes key findings on funding for law enforcement to tackle serious and organised criminality. Disappointingly, Baroness Williams said that the full review would remain unpublished, although, apparently, relevant partners have been given full sight of it.

I say gently to the Minister, and I have raised this on the floor of the House in another debate, that it is right that the Government can expect the Opposition’s support on such matters, but it is also right that the Opposition invoke what I believe is our entitlement to have the relevant information that we need from the Government. Perhaps we might be able to discuss how the Government might share with the shadow Home Secretary on Privy Council terms, or through a briefing for the wider shadow Home Office team, some of the contents of that report. In the spirit of co-operation on such important issues in the best interests of the country we should be able to share information in an environment of trust. I am sure that we can work out the specific arrangements that are required.

The Opposition fully support today’s orders, and welcome the introduction of the provisions to Northern Ireland at long last. When there is a lot of political discourse around issues that some have in Northern Ireland with the protocol and the continuing threat against police officers from dissident republicans—obviously the issue with the protocol is from loyalists—it is important that we should remember that the motivation for a great number of those people is criminality and illicit activity. The Government should give no credence to paramilitaries who are masquerading as spokespersons for their community. They do not speak for their community, so let us not give them the attention that they crave and desire.

Confiscating the ill-gotten proceeds of criminality and paramilitarism and tackling money laundering and the financing of terrorism remains a key challenge and urgent priority, and we of course welcome the powers that the provisions bring to that task.

09:31

[Kevin Foster]

As always in such debates, I begin by thanking the Official Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for St. Helens North, for his constructive approach to such matters. As he says, there is certainly no division between the Opposition and Government in the drive to tackle serious criminality and ensure that those who have made ill-gotten gains from their criminal activities, in some cases in the millions, are tracked down to recover that money. It is very welcome that the provisions of the orders are now extended to Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman noted that the first request to extend those powers to Northern Ireland was made in June 2020. I hope that he accepts that the past year has been a rather unusual one in the parliamentary landscape, not least in our ability to introduce secondary legislation, as evidenced by this morning’s arrangements. The capacity to consider such legislation has not been available, and available legislative time has largely had to consider the pandemic. That explains partly why it was not possible to introduce the legislation at an earlier date, but we look to bring the powers into effect next month. This morning’s package of affirmative SIs will deliver that.

In terms of the legislation’s impact on the rest of the UK, it is worth noting that since 2014-15, more than £1.25 billion has been taken out of the hands of criminals using Criminal Finances Act powers, including its predecessor legislation, to be fair, which was passed under the Labour Government in 2002. Since 2006, £1.126 billion has been returned to law enforcement agencies under the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. Those figures are true up to the end of the financial year 2019-20, so another year’s figures will be published shortly. In 2019-20, just under £208 million pounds-worth of proceeds of crime were collected under POCA powers. That represents an 8% increase in comparison with 2014-15. We believe that those powers have a clear impact on denying criminals their ill-gotten gains, but we keep those powers under review because we recognise that patterns of crime are changing. We may need to change our approach, and if required we will bring the necessary legislation before the House, subject to available parliamentary time. If we identify such a need, I am sure that we would enjoy the broad support of the Opposition, given the comments of the hon. Member for St. Helens North.

Four unexplained wealth orders have been issued. Such is their impact that one recently related to the recovery of £10 million from one person linked to serious and organised crime. They sit alongside the suite of available powers and should not be considered in isolation; they are exercised in addition to those other powers. We will, however, monitor their use, and ensure that that power is used appropriately and effectively. If we identify a need to extend their use or to modify their application, we will of course make the necessary changes. I accept the Opposition’s constructive approach to the issue and I am sure that we would enjoy their support were such a change required.

On the publication of the Mackey report, I think it would be better to respond to the hon. Gentleman in writing. I took on board his comments, particularly the possibility of meeting under Privy Council terms, but I think it would be best to reflect on that further.

I completely agree with the shadow Minister that no one should use “claimed” political affiliations or affiliations of nationality and wrap themselves in a flag to excuse themselves committing serious criminality. As we know, all too often paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland has been based on criminality in Northern Ireland— extortion rackets, looking to smuggle items. Those are not the actions of those with particularly strong political views, but those of criminals who look for a cause with which to dress themselves up to avoid the liabilities they should face. I certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will give whatever support we can to both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, as evidenced by the package of measures we are considering today, to tackle the scourge of criminality in Northern Ireland, thus ensuring that ill-gotten gains of criminality cannot be used to fund terrorist activity.

I commend the orders to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2021

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2021.—(Kevin Foster.)

Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2021

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2021.—(Kevin Foster.)

Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations: Code of Practice) Order 2021

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations: Code of Practice) Order 2021.—(Kevin Foster.)

Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Recovery of Listed Assets: Code of Practice) Regulations 2021

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Recovery of Listed Assets: Code of Practice) Regulations 2021.—(Kevin Foster.)

09:41

Committee rose.

Draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021

Wednesday 26th May 2021 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: †Sir David Amess

Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)

Efford, Clive (Eltham) (Lab)

† Fletcher, Mark (Bolsover) (Con)

† Hobhouse, Wera (Bath) (LD)

Mak, Alan (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Mann, Scott (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Morris, James (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Pursglove, Tom (Corby) (Con)

Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)

Throup, Maggie (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Trevelyan, Anne-Marie (Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth)

Twigg, Derek (Halton) (Lab)

† Twist, Liz (Blaydon) (Lab)

† Whitehead, Dr Alan (Southampton, Test) (Lab)

Winter, Beth (Cynon Valley) (Lab)

Chloe Freeman, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 26 May 2021

[Sir David Amess in the Chair]

Draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021

14:30

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021.

The regulations, which I will respectfully refer to as the fees regulations, were laid in draft before the House on 21 April.

As the environmental regulator of the offshore oil and gas industry, which I shall refer to as the offshore industry, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning—OPRED—recoups the cost of its regulatory functions from the industry rather than the taxpayer footing the bill. OPRED’s role is to minimise the impact of the offshore industry on the environment by, for example, controlling air emissions plus discharges to sea and minimising disturbance over the lifecycle of operations from seismic surveys through to post-decommissioning monitoring.

The regulatory activities for which OPRED can recover costs are covered in two ways—within a suite of regulations, which are covered by the fees regulations and by four fees schemes, which are not covered by the regulations because they do not require legislative change and will be amended administratively.

OPRED’s annual fees income is, on average, £6.2 million, which is recovered from around 130 companies that are billed quarterly. It recovers its costs via fees based on hourly rates. The fees regulations will increase the hourly rates used to calculate fees payable by the offshore industry. The fees relate to the provision of regulatory functions in relation to the environmental management of offshore operations. Currently, the fees that OPRED charges for providing its regulatory services are based on hourly rates of £190 for environmental specialists and £101 for non-specialists.

Environmental specialists are qualified technical staff who carry out the legislative functions of the Secretary of State and the non-specialists are administrative staff who support them. The current hourly rates have been in place since April 2020. OPRED has reviewed the cost base and concluded that the existing hourly rates need to be increased to recover fully OPRED’s costs for providing specific regulatory services.

The fees regulations will therefore amend the charging provisions by increasing the hourly rates for environmental specialists and non-specialists to £197 and £108 respectively. As the increases relate to cost recovery, they do not represent monetary changes linked to inflation. OPRED’s fees are determined by adding together the recorded number of hours worked by environmental specialists and non-specialists on cost-recoverable activities multiplied by the hourly rates. The new hourly rates were approved by Her Majesty’s Treasury in November last year.

Guidance on OPRED’s fee-charging regime is published and clearly explains the scope of the cost-recoverable functions undertaken by OPRED and how the costs are to be calculated and recovered. The revised fees to be paid will increase by a small amount, sufficient only to allow OPRED to recover its eligible costs. In that regard, the additional total cost resulting from the increase in hourly rates will be around £300,000 per year. OPRED’s guidance on its fees-charging regime will be revised to reflect the new hourly rates.

The fees increase will enable OPRED to recover the costs of providing regulatory services from those who benefit from them instead of those costs being passed on to the taxpayer. I hope that hon. Members will support the measure, which I commend to the Committee.

14:33

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

I thank the Minister for a lengthy and lucid exposition of the statutory instrument, which in essence can be summarised as “OPRED would like to put its prices up. Should we agree or not?” I have no objection to the principle of a regulator recovering its costs from the industry it is regulating. It is perfectly reasonable therefore that the costs are set forward for OPRED and are then translated into the charges that it puts across to the industry.

I note, however, that this is an annual process, and that it was last carried out in April last year, although I am not aware from the notes what the increase was. I think that it might be wise for future reference to develop between OPRED and industry some sort of agreed indexing for price rises, to give greater certainty to industry about what is coming its way in terms of charges in future years. The notion of validating those increases entirely from looking at the cost base of OPRED itself is not necessarily a smooth process, and perhaps something that indexes cost increases against other price indexes would be a more appropriate way of developing future price rises. Perhaps there should be a longer term periodic adjustment against cost base to make sure that OPRED is not out of pocket in the long term.

Those are very minor, hopefully helpful, suggestions, and the Opposition have no objection to the principle or the practice of what is being done in the SI, other than to note that the increases are slightly above the rate of inflation and perhaps that should be looked at. And that is the most I can think of to say about the regulations. I have nothing to offer the Minister in terms of detailed analysis of the work of OPRED, or things that might require her to write to me. On that basis, I think we can all agree that it is a good measure; it keeps OPRED in business; keeps the industry properly regulated, and should be proceeded with on that basis.

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to reply, or does she want to stand by her opening statement?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I will stand by my opening statement.

Question put and agreed to.

14:36

Committee rose.

Petition

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Petitions

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Residents of Mary Feilding Guild care home

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Petitions

The petition of residents of the constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green,

Declares that it is appalling that the new owners of the Mary Feilding Guild have issued eviction notices to the elderly residents during a pandemic; further that this is no way to treat vulnerable older people who have already been through such a difficult year.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on the owners to halt their plans immediately, cancel the eviction notices and instead work with residents to save their homes.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Catherine West, Official Report, 15 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 611.]

[P002659]

Observations from the Minister for Care (Helen Whately):

The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to manage changes in care providers within their local market.

Local authorities should have appropriate plans in place to minimise any disruption of services if a provider exits the market. They are in the best position to find a local solution, with the minimum possible disruption, that meets people’s needs and choices. Their priority will be residents and their families during what can be a difficult time.

Those with care and support needs should be reassured that they should not suffer a gap in their care service—even if their care is funded privately. The Care Act 2014 places a temporary duty on local authorities to ensure that people continue to receive the care and support they need, including people who fund their own care, if a provider exits the market.

The Government understand the care provider is working closely with Haringey Council which has been supporting the provider in finding alternative accommodation for residents.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26 May 2021

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

Business Rates Reduction Services

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Westminster Hall

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 25 February).

[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

00:00

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Welcome to Westminster Hall from the Boothroyd Room. I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to the normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating, physically and virtually, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to those of us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address, which is [e-mail]. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

09:26

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulation of business rates reduction services.

It is an absolute pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I must first draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk about this issue. This debate is obviously the most important event happening in Parliament at 9.30 this morning—no doubt we will not be distracted by anything else that is going on.

This is a very simple issue. It relates primarily to one single company, and I can describe these people as no better than a group of con men, who prey on unsuspecting business people, usually very small SMEs—small and medium-sized enterprises—and con them into signing a very unfair contract, which often is completed after the event, after they have met with the business person. The contract that they tie them into, which is a very long-term contract, effectively diverts tens of thousands of pounds intended to be Government support, Treasury support, to SMEs—usually smaller businesses—from them and into their own bank account. The company that I am speaking about specifically is called RVA Surveyors. This is a company in Manchester run by a gentleman called Stephan Hughes.

The support, of course, is small business rates relief, which is supposed to be there for small businesses; indeed, it is the relief granted by the Treasury to help people through the covid crisis. About half of this support has been diverted from the businesses concerned into the relevant business, RVA Surveyors, and there is not even a service provided. It is a simple letter that is required; all these people do is send a simple letter to the local authority and that effectively diverts the relief.

Dozens of cases are known to Members of this House. I think that 13 different Members of Parliament supported a letter that I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the Insolvency Service. They include the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), whom I am delighted to see here today, but also other Members who have expressed keen support for this debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is detained at other proceedings this morning.

Dozens of cases are known to Members of this House, but according to RVA’s own website, RVA has about 10,000 clients around the UK, so I think it is safe to assume that hundreds, if not thousands, of businesses have effectively been defrauded in this way. I can describe these people, RVA Surveyors, in no better terms than by saying that they are shysters, carpetbaggers, parasites. It is a simple con trick that they carry out, and this happened to one of my constituents, which is how my attention was drawn to this particular issue. My constituent, Jude Carter, who owns Dreams Hair & Beauty Salon in Hunmanby, is a small businessperson.

Imagine how it is when someone is busy trying to set up a business. These people use a freedom of information request to find out which premises qualify for small business rates relief and which are not currently getting that relief. They then call on that particular business. The businessperson is setting up the business, painting the walls, furnishing the place, getting ready for the first days of trading, and those people come in and say, “We can save you lots of money—just sign this form and we will reduce your business rates.”

There are many business rates reduction specialists that offer a perfectly bona fide service. They will measure the premises, argue with the Valuation Office Agency, reduce the business rates and provide a service for which they quite rightly should be paid. They provide fair terms for that reduction, and both the business owner and the rates reduction specialists then benefit from that reduction in business rates. That is a perfectly reasonable service to offer.

This is entirely different, because the small business rates relief is almost automatically provided for that business. All that business needs to do is notify the council that they are the occupant, that they qualify for small business rates relief, and it will be automatically applied. It is a simple, standard letter. The measure is automatically applied and the rates relief from the Government is automatically provided. Anything up to around £6,000 or £7,000 a year in small business rates relief will be provided to that business.

However, some business owners are not aware that it is automatically provided. Those people go in and tell them, “We can reduce your rates bill—sign here.” They offer a very long-term contract. In Jude Carter’s case, she signed a 12-year contract, and she believes that the contract was amended after the event to become a longer-term contract. It was for a much shorter term, but they changed it.

Jude Carter’s premises had rateable value of £6,300 a year, which means, using the multiplier, that she should be paying around £3,000 a year. Small business rates relief applies, so there should be no rates at all for a small business owner occupying those premises. RVA just writes to the council and that small business rates relief is then applied, so Mrs Carter pays no rates. Some £3,000 have been saved with a single standard letter, and the contract says that Mrs Carter owes RVA 52% of that saving. For one standard letter, for 12 years, she is paying 52% of the saving from which she benefits. Typically, over that 12-year contract, £18,000 has been diverted. The Treasury wants that money to go to Mrs Carter to help her run her business, to keep her in business, but it is being diverted to RVA. It is simply, absolutely wrong.

As I say, contracts are tampered with. Mrs Carter has tried to get out of the contract, she has tried not paying the contract, but RVA has used many dubious tactics to harass her into paying. They ring the premises and speak to her or her staff, to say that the bills are overdue, which causes some distress within the business itself. Nobody wants to think that their business cannot pay its bills, so time and again, Mrs Carter has to pay the bill, despite the fact that there is absolutely no service being provided for that extortionate amount of money.

It is usually the very smallest businesses that fall prey to those tactics—and there are many cynical tactics that are employed. Those people forge signatures. There was one court case presided over by Deputy District Judge Lynds in Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court. That case, involving Stephen Snell, has been reported and Judge Lynds dismissed RVA’s claims. RVA will take people to court to enforce contracts. For reasons I shall come on to explain, they are perfectly enforceable contracts—that is, if they have not been forged. However, in this case, it was determined that RVA’s representative had forged a signature. The judge stated:

Ordinarily I would not come anywhere close to make an assessment of these signatures but it’s plain to me”

that the signature did not bear any resemblance to Mr Snell’s signature, and he kicked the case out. There is therefore demonstrable evidence of fraudulent activity by that company. It uses other tactics as well. It completes contracts after the event, as I believe it did with Mrs Carter, and it changes them to extend the length of the contract or the percentage that it charges. When it charges 45% plus VAT, that adds up to just over 50% of the benefit received.

The company resorts to harassing owners and their staff, and there is evidence that it lies to the Valuation Office Agency when it assesses premises. It works on a damages-based agreement. According to the law, a reason for the charges has to be provided, but the company provides no reason, so it is debatable whether the contracts should be enforceable in law. Nevertheless, the courts generally enforce the contracts and make the small business pay the amount on the contract.

We are aware of most of these cases because of a very good campaign by Andrew Penman, who writes for the Daily Mirror. He has covered many of these cases time and again and has highlighted RVA’s dubious tactics. A surveyor called Steven Simon is helping my constituent, Jude Carter, with her case. Sadly, the company gets away with such tactics time and again, and the courts rule that the small business has to pay because a contract is enforceable. Even though the contract is patently unfair, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which makes provision for unfair contracts, does not apply to SMEs, so once a business—even a very small business that probably has all the hallmarks of a consumer—has signed a contract, it is enforceable, however unfair it is.

The only way to tackle the company and to try to challenge the contracts—closing the company would be the most desired outcome—is through the Insolvency Service. I wrote to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I know my right hon. Friend the Minister will say that perhaps BEIS has a greater jurisdiction over this than the Treasury, and I wrote to BEIS about this. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary wrote back and said that the Insolvency Service could deal with these situations where there is clear evidence of corporate abuse, fraud, scams and sharp practice. The Insolvency Service wrote to me and said that it did not see the hallmarks of that in my case, which astounds me. There is clear evidence of corporate abuse, fraud, scams and sharp practice.

I should say that RVA Surveyors is not the only organisation involved in sharp practice. There are others, such as SJ Associates. A simple solution would be to extend the consumer protection laws in the Consumer Rights Act to include microbusinesses. There is a precedent for that because microbusinesses were, for example, covered under the Financial Ombudsman Service, and that has now been extended to larger small businesses. In addition, the Financial Ombudsman Service has jurisdiction over some elements of utility contracts between microbusinesses and utility providers. There is a precedent for extending the laws for microbusinesses, which would resolve the problem, because the court would be able to look at the contracts, see that they are patently unfair and strike them out.

Another way to solve the problem would be to reform business rates completely. I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Minister about that on numerous occasions. I believe that business rates as they were first constructed are no longer fit for purpose. Businesses no longer trade only or primarily from high street premises. The business world has moved on. Business rates, based on property, were once seen as the right way to tax businesses, but I do not feel that it is the right way now. The Treasury is looking at this matter, and I know there is another review. In the recent consultation, three solutions were proposed: some kind of land value tax; an online sales tax; and an increase in VAT. The latter would be a much better option than the current business rates system or an online sales tax.

The difficulty with an online sales tax is that it would create more complexity by adding another tax to an already very complex tax system. An online sales tax also assumes that businesses trade one way or the other —online or through retail premises—when actually many trade in at least three ways: online, through high street premises and click and collect. An online sales tax would therefore require a business to think about how it sold a product, whether click and collect, online or through the high street, which would add complexity. An online sales tax also assumes that retail is the only sector affected by the move to online shopping, but that is far from the case.

Due to the opportunities of online activity, there are many new competitors in various sectors, not least the restaurant sector, which sees more and more competition from dark kitchens using Deliveroo, Just Eat and others for deliveries. In my business world—I am in the estate agency business, as you know, Mr Hollobone—we have seen new online competition, too. An online sales tax may look from that retail perspective as if new competition is only for retail in the high street, but that is not the case.

A much simpler way of levelling the playing field between online businesses and high street or premises-based businesses is a simple increase in VAT. It would affect everyone in the same way and, if we increased VAT by about 4p in the pound, we could scrap business rates altogether. Perhaps we could look at the VAT threshold as well, which can be a barrier to some businesses growing. With that, there would be no need for rates and therefore no need for rates relief, no need for rates reductions and no need for the Valuation Office Agency and many of the rates specialists, who could move into the productive economy and do something far more constructive than, say, two surveyors arguing about the rates on a particular property. It would settle the issue once and for all in Parliament and create that fair and level playing field for all businesses. The best thing is that there would be none of the reprobates from RVA, because there would be no business for it to try to hijack, moving rates relief from a business to its own bank account.

That is one way of solving the problem—but we need to solve the problem. It cannot be right that we leave these smallest of businesses at the mercy of complete charlatans such as RVA. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to do what he can to persuade the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to get the Insolvency Service to look at this, close down RVA and ensure that the relief that he has directed from the taxpayer to small and medium-sized enterprises ends up where he intended.

09:43

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who has been a doughty campaigner on this issue, and rightly so. He said that 13 of our colleagues are affected. I suspect there are many more but that they have not felt able to raise the issue.

Let us be honest: we recognise that we may not be the main event this morning in Parliament, but these issues are our bread and butter as MPs. They cut across the political parties because a rip-off is a rip-off. When we see companies preying on and exploiting our constituents, who are trying to do that most basic and important thing of setting up businesses and being successful in our local communities, selling a wide range of goods and services to those communities, it inspires anger in all of us and frustration that we cannot do something more quickly to help. I recognise that we may not be the box office hit this morning that we would want to be, but I agree with the Minister—consensus is breaking out—and I hope that we can make progress today on something with a longer lasting effect, because in some sense this should be a simple open and shut case.

Like the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, I was contacted by a local resident absolutely at their wits’ end dealing with RVA as a company. They have a small business with one or two employees—not a large multinational—and are trying their best to understand and navigate the range of regulations and rules that they have to abide by, and to understand what they can do to give their business the best fighting chance. Six years ago, like the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, my constituent was contacted by RVA and offered what appeared to be assistance. There are many different companies that would offer assistance to small businesses that seem, on the face of it, to be helpful. It is not just about small business rate relief; often it can be about recycling or rubbish collection—all sorts of areas where there are different rules for businesses than for individuals. For a small business, particularly a sole trader, having someone help them to get their head around them seems like a blessing. Unfortunately, it was anything but a blessing.

The stories are very similar, which is why some of us have been exasperated by the lack of reaction to the company —it has been going on for many years. My constituent was contacted and told that they could reduce their business rate cost; RVA visited the office and took measurements—allegedly on behalf of the council, as though it was part of a public service—and then billed the company for the savings on small business rate relief. But those savings would have been automatically due to the company anyway. My constituent, not unreasonably, did not know the ins and outs of business rate relief. I am sure that if the Minister gave us all a test on it, I would wager that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton would beat me, but even he would not know everything about this scheme. To expect our constituents who are setting up a business to know all that information is simply unreasonable. That is why I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman when he uses the term “carpet-bagging”. There might be some more choice terms, but I am very conscious that they would not be not parliamentary language.

My constituent is now part of a long-running legal battle with that company—I will limit what I say to ensure that there is no issue for them but, like the hon. Gentleman, they have issues with the documents that appear to have been falsified and claims about signatures. RVA claims that my constituent agreed to a seven-year contract, when they only had a five-year lease on the premises. It does not make any logical sense. My constituent has had years of torture, causing real distress, through the court case and the impact on their ability to run their business at all.

When people come to us—I am sure the Members participating virtually have had the same experience—we want to help. I thought, surely, this is almost a police matter if fraud is involved. To find that this company is able to continue to operate to this day, ripping off businesses around the country, is deeply distressing. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have pursued this issue with trading standards in the area where the company operates, but I am told that they cannot act. Many moons ago I scrutinised the Consumer Rights Act 2015, where we talked about providing a reasonable service at a reasonable timescale for a reasonable price. None of that is reasonable. I am at a loss to understand why we cannot have stronger enforcement. We have not seen stronger enforcement, which is why this debate is so important.

I hope the Minister is open. I know that he, like me and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, would be aggrieved at seeing people ripped off. My constituent asks for a simple solution: she says that the small business rate should be automatic. Actually, the Federation of Small Businesses has been talking about licensing those companies, partly because, as I say, I do not think the rip-offs are restricted just to companies talking about business rate relief. Small businesses, especially in the post-covid environment, have really struggled over the past 18 months and are getting back on their feet, and they will desperately want help and advice about how best to navigate the new environment that they are operating in. It is entirely reasonable for the FSB to call for those companies to be licensed. We should be thinking about licensing business service companies so that we can stop what the FSB itself calls cowboy practices.

This is a matter for Government, not least because it is changes in Government policy that these companies are exploiting. When changes in business rates relief happen, these companies make their money; they make their money in a way that undermines the very policy of the Government. Governments of all political persuasions have tried to support small businesses. They are trying to pass on money—they are trying to help small businesses with their costs—yet, because of the practices of these companies, they can inadvertently end up charging them more, because the bill comes for the fact that the relief has changed.

I hope the Minister will listen and be not just sympathetic, but proactive, in calling to account the Insolvency Service, asking for an investigation into RVA, and in helping to shut down this awful company once and for all, as well as in learning the lessons from this situation on how we can best support small businesses when it comes to regulation.

We cannot have a debate in this place without talking about the B word, Brexit, and I always thought the concept of red tape and how much more of it might be coming was ironic. Here is a very clear example of where removing red tape could really help to support our constituents and make sure that people are not being ripped off, if only we have the political will to do so. I genuinely hope that the Minister will listen to this cross-party call for action and respond accordingly.

09:51

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for highlighting the issue today.

I beg indulgence. The hon. Gentleman and I worked alongside an incredible person and I want to take a moment to place on the record in this House the passing of a gentleman whose work was monumental on regulatory issues. He was a good friend of mine and a good friend of the hon. Gentleman, and well known to many other Members of this House. He was Brian Little. He was one of my constituents, a good friend for nearly all my life, and all his life as well—we were of a similar age. He was a passionate advocate for the underdog, well known in this House in the realms of finance and reform. Brian will be sadly missed. His shoes are difficult to fill. I just want to have that on the record, Mr Hollobone.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

May I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman’s words? Brian was a great man—a great man who did much work for many businesses that could not fight for themselves, in the battle against larger banks. He did a tremendous job, in his inimitable way. He was humble. It was never for himself. It was always, as the hon. Gentleman says, for the underdog, fighting an almost impossible battle. He had many a great success in that regard.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. His words resonate with my own. The family will be greatly encouraged by our comments.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and her reasoned and valuable contribution—a well-thought-out contribution, which we wholeheartedly support. She referred to cross-party support. I hope my comments today will add cross-party support to the two previous speakers.

I understand that the regulations for business rates relief are handled in a different way in Northern Ireland than here on the mainland, and in Scotland, but the issues are the same. The ten-minute rule Bill regarding business rates means that we perhaps can and should take a UK-wide, holistic view of this matter.

I read with great interest the comments that highlight the belief that business rates were designed for a bygone era, where business went hand-in-hand with high street premises. The way we shop is now changing forever and the coronavirus has exacerbated those changes. Online sales now account for 33% of all retail sales, compared with 20% only a year ago.

I have been very impressed with my local council in my constituency of Strangford, which is working with businesses on the high street to retain their presence while they enter online forums. I have seen businesses, many of which were only able to open last week in Northern Ireland, come to terms with the new click-and-collect era and other ways of doing business. As we have watched businesses roll with gut-wrenching punches, it has highlighted to me that perhaps we, too, in this place, must advocate for change that makes sense in the post-covid world, where we are today. I see the wisdom, as I have seen many times in the past, of the rationale of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. I am interested to hear more and learn more of the outworking of the proposals that I have heard from my respected colleague and friend, as well as of those from the hon. Member for Walthamstow.

When I read the Library briefing for today’s debate, I was dismayed but not shocked at the companies seeking to take advantage of struggling businesses who are appealing the rates. The scams were wide-ranging and intricate, and it is clear that the current system leaves itself open for the kinds of abuses that both hon. Members refer to—yet another indicator that something needs to change, and change soon. The FSB contacted and asked me to put on record, as others have done, that they believe business rate companies should be licensed to access business rates records on behalf of businesses. There would be a low barrier to access, but a condition of the license would be to ban cowboy practices. The hon. Gentleman for Thirsk and Malton’s introduction used a lot of descriptive nouns for them without using any bad language, which I thought was quite good and I really relate to that. We could probably think of other things which would be unparliamentary and not appropriate. Nonetheless, it illustrates how we all feel.

While recent business rates reductions during the pandemic were welcome, too many businesses find themselves with an unexpected bill from these companies. Their predatory payment tactics mean that where Government policy reduced the bill to nil, these companies claim the reduction as part of their work, and charge year on year. Many businesses end up with a bill for £1,000 plus, when the only change has been as a result of Government policy. The Government does it, and they do it because that is their job. These guys come along and charge for it, when the Government does all the work. It reminds me of the cuckoo. We all know what the cuckoo does—he jumps into the nest of another bird, eats all the food that the parents give and has nothing to do with the parent birds. These are cuckoo companies and in my opinion deliver something that is totally wrong. Too often the conditions are hidden in the trading terms and conditions.

I welcome the schemes in England, such as extra targeted support packages for businesses and relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, and the corresponding help in Northern Ireland. I put on record my thanks to the Minister and the Government—my Government—for all they have done to help businesses in the constituency of Strangford, and across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They have kept those businesses afloat and we thank them for it. However, the fact of the matter is that businesses will need ongoing help. Rather than further complex and detailed schemes, now is the time to overview and change the entire system, as the hon. Gentleman for Thirsk and Malton referred to in his introduction. There must be a genuine review of how we can support businesses to survive, maintain a presence, and importantly continue with job creation. I believe we will get a bounce whenever we come out of lockdown, but we need to continue that bounce right through into the months and years ahead. When it comes to business, we have to play the long game, investing in small businesses, and knowing that in the end we will recoup every penny that has been outlaid when jobs continue and taxes are paid in manageable amounts to keep the business open and viable.

In conclusion, I believe the suggestions of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton are useful in moving forward, and I join him and the hon. Member for Walthamstow in asking the Government to put serious thought and manpower behind making this change for the good of business, our economy, and consequently, the quality of life throughout the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

09:59

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to begin the summing up in this debate. Like others who have spoken, it is clear that if there had not been other major attractions on elsewhere in the House, there would have been far more people wanting to take part in this debate. I presume that is why the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) applied for the 90-minute debate. In normal circumstances, I think the 90 minutes would have been heavily over-subscribed. The initial title of the debate that appeared in the business last week made us in the SNP wonder if it was relevant in Scotland at all, as business rates, and everything to do with them, are devolved. However, it is obvious that the concern is not so much about how the business rates system operates in the different UK nations: it is about the regulation of business practices in general.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton spoke very eloquently, and clearly on the back of a significant amount of work to find out his facts, for which I commend him, but he spoke about a problem that is not specifically about the regulation of one particular service; it is about business practices that are dishonest, predatory, unacceptable in any circumstances, illegal in many circumstances and, as Members have suggested, probably illegal in the circumstances that we have heard about today.

I believe that such practices should be illegal, and enforceable not only in the civil courts. There should be circumstances where this behaviour crosses the line and is recognised as criminal activity, so that the directors of the companies concerned can find themselves personally facing financial sanctions or even imprisonment for the damage that they are doing to other people’s businesses and livelihoods.

My concern about the way the hon. Member introduced the debate is that if we close down the opportunity for the shysters, to use his term, to exploit businesses by setting up fake business rates reduction schemes, it will not take them a week to find a new way to scam other honest businesses, or even the same honest business again—for example, the provision of telephone services. A long-established and very well respected household-name business in my constituency was brought close to insolvency by a telecoms scam. A business offered it a better deal on its phone systems than the one it already had.

Many of the practices that the hon. Member mentioned happened to my constituent, and to many others as well—contracts being changed, documents being taken away and never returned, and customers not seeing the contract that was being used against them in a court action. All the practices that will happen with dishonest business rates advisers will happen with dishonest telephone system salespersons, and with dishonest businesses in almost any sector of the economy that we look at.

Although I recognise that there are specific issues about the way that business rates reliefs and reductions operate that can provide an opportunity for dishonest so-called advisory services, we need to look at it much more widely than simply that one service. There are certainly legitimate questions about whether property valuation is the best way to assess businesses’ financial contribution to the whole community. There are legitimate questions about whether property valuation is the best way to tax individuals for their contribution to local council services. There are certainly questions about whether it is sustainable that those are the only two taxes that most councils can vary to any extent in order to fund their services.

Those are discussions for a different day, possibly after the economy has recovered from the shocks of covid and the subsequent lockdown. The difficulty that we face is that a lot of individuals have been persuaded to incorporate their self-employed microbusiness as a limited company, and they did not realise when they did it that they lost almost all the consumer protections that they had as an individual. I put it to the Minister that we might need to look at amending consumer protection legislation so that very small businesses have a degree of consumer protection in the same way that we do as individuals.

Individuals get consumer protection because it is recognised that we are smaller than the people trying to sell us stuff. We often do not have the resources. We certainly cannot afford the lawyers that some of them can. That is why consumer protection legislation was introduced and has been amended. Is it time to apply the same principle to very small businesses? Even though they are businesses, and all businesses in some ways are equal in the eyes of the law, do we need to start introducing special consumer protection legislation that applies to small businesses, regardless of whether they are incorporated? I welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that point.

For the record, when I have done some checks I have found at least one person called Stephen Hughes who has run property-related companies in the Greater Manchester area. There are obviously a lot of companies with RVA or very similar sets of initials in their names. We have to make it clear that companies and individuals who, simply by coincidence, have similar names to those mentioned today are, as far as we can tell, completely innocent of wrongdoing. Nothing we are saying here should be taken to impugn the integrity of anyone other than the specific individual and business named today.

I will bring my remarks to a close with a firm message for the Government: people who set up a business with dishonourable or dishonest intentions, simply to prey on legitimate, honest and hard-working small businesses anywhere in these islands, should not be allowed to trade. If they are still allowed to carry out their nefarious practices, regulation of those businesses is not strong enough—it has to be tightened, and it has to be tightened soon, before we see more valuable small businesses going to the wall.

10:05

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

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for the chance to respond on behalf of the Opposition to this important debate. I applaud the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for having secured the debate on the need to regulate business rate relief services and for drawing our attention to the shocking and distressing detail of what happened to Miss Carter’s business in his constituency and of the wider appalling behaviour of RVA Surveyors.

I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) on the wider need for action on predatory business practices, and those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who added to the description of the shocking behaviour of RVA Surveyors, reminding us that she is a tireless campaigner for businesses in her constituency. I also recognise the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who mentioned the need for business rates to be looked at more widely to reflect the modern world and to support our high streets.

Our high streets are only just beginning to be able to get back on their feet after more than a year of covid restrictions in some form. Many of the problems they face, however, did not begin when covid hit; they have faced challenges in making ends meet since long before the pandemic started. In that context, it is shameful that con artists should prey on the financial insecurity of some small and medium-sized businesses at this of all times, and I am sure that all Members welcome the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton bringing such concerning practice to our attention.

Let us be clear about how some providers of so-called business rate relief services operate. As we have heard, they claim that they will navigate through the local authority’s system on behalf of businesses and perhaps play hard ball with the Valuation Office Agency to negotiate business rate relief for companies. Their claims, however, could not be further from the truth. In fact, some of the businesses that need support most are lured—often on a no relief, no fee basis—into multi-year contracts that entitle the service providers to a huge percentage of any business rates savings made by the company. That results in astonishing and predatory commission fees for arranging benefits that are often applied freely and automatically by local authorities. Many businesses are entitled to small business rate relief, and others in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors receive grants automatically or can apply through their local council website.

To spell out what that means in practice, let me set out an example, using conservative values nowhere near as bad as the worst cases that have been reported in the media. Take a new small business with a rateable value of about £13,500—a nursery, perhaps, or a small café. Its business rate prior to any relief would be in the region of £6,750. Were it unaware that it was entitled to small business rate relief, it might be tempted to contract with a business rate relief service, which would promise to negotiate a discounted rate for business in exchange for—again being conservative—say a 30% commission on any money saved. The service might stipulate—again, conservatively—a two-year contract, well below the five years or far longer that we have seen in the press or spoken about today.

In the 2019 financial year, that business would have been entitled to a 50% deduction through the small business rate relief. In the following year, covid measures increased that to 100%. Over those two years alone, with just a 30% commission, the provider of that so-called business rate relief service would take just shy of £3,000 off the new café or nursery. That is money that the new business was automatically entitled to and should have benefited from, yet the service provider took it off that business having added no meaningful value.

That is a deeply unethical business practice; it is exploitative, and targets those who need the relief the most. At present, these services are free to prey on vulnerable businesses, because there is no regulation in place and perhaps because too many businesses are unaware of the reliefs they are automatically entitled to. Although the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton disagrees with me fairly often in the Chamber, I have no disagreement with him whatever in saying that there is no place for this kind of practice in the UK. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government intend to do about this parasitic behaviour, which can do so much to harm small businesses.

I would also be grateful if, as the hon. Gentleman alluded to, the Minister would take the opportunity in his response to set out his position on some of the wider challenges posed by the business rates system to small and medium businesses, particularly those on the high street, which have faced difficulties for many years in making ends meet. I am of course aware that the Government have said that their final report on a fundamental review of business rates will be published in autumn 2021, so perhaps the Minister can start by confirming that this deadline will still be met. While recognising the promised publication date in the autumn, will the Minister none the less take this opportunity to update us on the Government’s thinking regarding any alternatives they are considering to the current system, as introduced in 1988? Can he guarantee that high street businesses will benefit from the reform and that online retailers will be asked to take on a fairer share? Finally, despite restrictions potentially—hopefully—being lifted on 21 June, we expect the impact of covid on businesses to continue beyond that date. Are there any circumstances in which the Minister would consider extending the 100% business rate relief for a further three months beyond the end of June, as called for by the Opposition ahead of the Budget?

As I have made clear, we agree with the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. He is right to raise them, and I hope the Minister will be clear about what the Government will do to tackle the parasitic behaviour of so-called business rate relief services. As he will know, however, business rates are in need of a comprehensive review, so I would welcome his also updating us on the Government’s latest position on the wider points I have raised.

10:12

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for having secured this important debate on a matter that is of considerable public interest generally, but also locally in his constituency and to those affected by this company. It is a pleasure to speak in a debate that is not disfigured by party politics; all Members have made very constructive contributions, and I am grateful for them.

I will start by expressing my sadness that, inevitably, proceedings elsewhere in this House at the moment are going to be overshadowed by this very important consideration of business rates. I only hope that the media will find some time to indulge Mr Cummings in his comments in between reporting on this vital topic. In a slightly more serious vein, I apologise that the Government have not been able to supply a Minister with specific responsibility for this area to respond to the debate. As the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) rightly said, its focus is not on business rates—although there has been the occasional attempt to crowbar the rest of the business rates system in—but on the reduction services aspect that my hon. Friend raised. That aspect is a matter of business regulation, and therefore falls to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. He and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) have also focused on some individual cases of predatory practice by specific companies, and they will understand that I cannot comment in any detail on specific cases. It would set a very bad precedent for a Financial Secretary to do so, given the connection to the tax system in a different context.

I think Members recognise that, at its core, the system of business rates is a relatively simple and straightforward one. Companies and individuals who occupy non-domestic properties are liable for business rates. The rates bill is the product, in the literal, mathematical sense, of the rateable value of the property and the multiplier for the financial year concerned, offset by any rate reliefs. The rateable value is set by the Valuation Office Agency and, broadly speaking, it is the rental value at a set date —presently 1 April 2015.

In cases where businesses are unsure about the rateable value of properties, there are plenty of helpful resources on the website of the Valuation Office Agency. For example, I can go online and see a detailed valuation of No. 2, Marsham Street, which is the headquarters of the Home Office, and an explanation for how its valuation has been reached. You will be pleased to know, Mr Hollobone, that it has rather a high valuation, as befits its position in central London.

If ratepayers are unhappy with their rateable value, there is an online system known as check, challenge and appeal, which allows them to check the facts and, if necessary, to dispute the valuation that has been reached. This system was introduced to provide ratepayers with a service that is easier to use and understand than its predecessor and that enables quicker resolution of cases. An evaluation of the system last year found that it is working and that ratepayers are getting their cases resolved faster, without the automatic need to make appeals.

Rate reliefs are applied by individual local authorities, but most of these are automatic or require minimal information from the ratepayer. For example, transitional relief, which is used to phase in the effects of revaluations, is entirely automatic. For small business rate relief, rate- payers need only provide a little information about other properties on which they pay business rates, before being able to claim. All rate bills must explain the various reliefs available, and local authorities have many excellent websites that explain how to claim those reliefs.

Much of the £16 billion of relief that the Government have provided to the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors in response to covid-19—this was picked up by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—has been applied automatically to rates bills. So there are many automatic methods of applying reliefs currently within the system. The relevance of that to the present debate is that there is no reason why a ratepayer should have to use an agent to claim rate relief. If they believe they are eligible for relief, they should instead contact their local authority. Of course, that is not in any sense to criticise people who have been found to be clients or would-be clients of the predatory organisations that have been highlighted by Members in the debate.

Let me pick up on the nature of some of the protections that exist within the system, of which there are several. One is the rules that apply to business-to-business contracts and that arise from the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008, which prohibit advertising that misleads traders. There is also the Misrepresentation Act 1967, which may also apply to business-to-business contracts, and which says that if someone has entered into a contract following misrepresentation by the other party, they would be entitled to rescind that contract. Additionally, if they have suffered loss, they can claim damages against the other party.

Small businesses can seek help through other channels. If a ratepayer feels that there may have been illegal or fraudulent activity, they can choose to take court action, as I understand a number of businesses have successfully done in at least one of the cases under discussion. Alternatively, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned the Insolvency Service, which offers some protections, although they appear not to have been availing in this case.

It is worth just picking up the point about consumer protections. At present, the services are provided to the businesses that I have described, and consumer protections do not apply in the case that we have described. I note, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has argued, that microbusinesses share many of the characteristics of consumers, and he and other Members have therefore argued that they are worthy of protections in their own right. Members have highlighted the predatory practices of the companies they have discussed, which are, I am afraid, also exercised by a relatively small number of other companies, and cause extreme distress to the people who are affected by them.

It is important to note that, in other markets—for example, financial markets—it has proved possible to differentiate between protections afforded to different kinds of people in the client relationship. Therefore, there is a clear case here for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to revisit this area and to assess what further protections can, in principle, be provided. Let me conclude with a very simple message.

[Stella Creasy]

I hesitate to stop the Minister in full flow, because it is very interesting to hear what he is saying. I just want to come back on a point he made about businesses being entitled to rates relief automatically. Of course, that does require businesses to know about that. I agree with him, and I think we all agree, that differentiating between businesses—often small businesses —and consumers does not make any sense in terms of the expectation of protection, which is the reason why we have consumer regulations.

However, might he be convinced that it would be helpful in these instances for Government to be proactive in telling people that they might be entitled to rates relief? One reason why this company has been able to exploit people is a lack of awareness of the scheme. Although the Minister may feel that it is relatively straightforward, for a new business, the idea that there might be some things that do not have to be paid and others that do adds complexity. Is there a case, perhaps, in the absence of the further consumer protections we are talking about, for requiring local authorities, when they send a bill, to say, “Most small businesses would be entitled to rate relief, and therefore it is worth your time investigating”?

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I have already said that all rates bills are required to explain the various reliefs available and that local authorities have, in many cases, excellent websites that explain how to claim the reliefs. Of course, the fact that reliefs in the cases I have described are automatic means that they flow through in and of themselves. That is a very attractive feature, where that can be engineered into the system. Where it cannot, it is for good reasons, and it may not be possible.

I do not think it is right to suggest—I do not think anyone who has participated in this very thoughtful debate would suggest—that there is any easy fix here, but there is a clear case to be addressed. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for bringing it to our attention and for raising it with the Government. I think the Government—across my colleagues and myself—need to consider what more can be done, both by themselves and in their further discussions with local authorities.

10:22

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank all hon. Members for their support in this debate. Everybody made very well thought through comments. I particularly thank the Minister. There is no doubt that this issue has arisen as an unintended consequence of the generous targeted support from the Treasury for small businesses. Very small businesses, generally, are then subject to predatory behaviour from the rip-off merchants, as has been mentioned by various hon. Members today. In the case of Jude Carter, the contract will divert £18,000—which the Treasury intended to give to her in taxpayer support—from her to RVA. That is simply unacceptable. In many cases—hopefully not in Jude Carter’s case—that would be a matter of life or death for a business of that size; £18,000 is a huge amount of money over 12 years.

Clearly, this is a scam. It is disappointing that the Insolvency Service has chosen not to investigate. It did write back to me, saying that, despite the fact that it does have jurisdiction over scams of this nature, it found no grounds on which to take further action within its powers. It is very surprising that the Insolvency Service will not act in this clear case of abuse by a business of other businesses. It has the power to close down this business. It has the power to strike off directors. I hope it will listen to the debate and act. It has decided to look at the issue again—it recently wrote to me asking for more information about hon. Members who have such cases—so I really do hope it will act.

I appreciate the comments from my right hon. Friend the Minister. This is a specific case, but there are other cases of predatory behaviour inflicted on microbusinesses. I am very heartened to hear what he said. There is a good case for extending the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to cover microbusinesses, which would resolve this problem, because I am sure that these contracts would be struck out by the court on the basis of the very unfair terms. I think there will be other contracts, under which small businesses are subjected to unfair behaviour to persuade them to sign, where the courts could intervene to prevent that behaviour from happening in the future.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, and I hope we can make more progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered regulation of business rates reduction services.

10:25

Sitting suspended.

Istanbul Convention: Position of the UK Government

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Istanbul Convention and the position of the UK Government.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. There is an urgency to this debate, which I will come on to explain, but one of the primary concerns of the Council of Europe, representing 47 member countries and about 800 million citizens in those countries, is to safeguard and protect human rights. Violence, particularly violence against women, including domestic violence, undermines the core values on which the Council of Europe is based.

The urgency of this debate comes about for very good reasons, and just let me say that I initiate the debate, as the leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, in order to highlight the problems that we have with regard to the Istanbul convention. Those reasons stem from the fact that the Turkish Government have decided to withdraw from that convention. People may think it very strange, as it is called the Istanbul convention, that the Turkish Government have decided to withdraw from it, but also the Polish Government appear to be giving indications that they wish to withdraw from it. I think that this is a very serious challenge to a particularly important treaty of the Council of Europe, which I will come on to in just a second.

The reason the UK becomes involved in this is that the Turkish delegation has been saying, “What do we care about this? Look at the UK. A founder member and grand payeur of the Council of Europe has signed the convention but not even ratified it. If they haven’t ratified it, what use is it and why are people getting on to us?” That is something that we should take a strong stand against, because, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will come on to say, we have been doing a lot in order to ratify it.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for calling this debate today, because it was back in 2012 that the UK Government signed the Istanbul convention, demonstrating their real commitment to tackling violence against women and girls. I join him in urging the Government to set out when the ratification process will come to a head, because I agree that it is deeply concerning that other countries might be taking the lack of ratification as a sign that they do not have to be as cognisant of the treaty as they should be.

[John Howell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. What I would point out on that is, first, that it is a question that I would like to put to the Minister, and I am sure that she will want to comment on it, during her reply to the debate, and say something about the timetable. But we in this country, unlike many countries in Europe, try to change the law first, before ratifying the treaty. It is a simple issue: we try to get the law right in this country. Let us look at some of the other countries that have approached ratification. Ireland signed it in 2015 but did not ratify it until 2019. Luxembourg signed in 2011 but did not ratify until 2018. There is often a long period during which treaties are discussed and the law is changed, but it is such a great shame that the rest of Europe does not follow our advice and change the law in order to get the treaty right. That is certainly something that I have put to the group; and the group, to a person, completely agrees. That is an important point to remember.

The Minister, in her evidence to the House of Lords, said that we have gone further in what we have implemented than the treaty requires. It would be useful to have how we have gone further on the record, so that I have a piece of paper that I can wave—if that does not create too much of an impression of Neville Chamberlain—and can say, “This is what we are really doing.”

The Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, known as the Istanbul convention, protects women against all forms of violence. It obliges countries to prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence, including domestic violence, against women.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I am always interested in his debates because he highlights issues that I am particularly interested in, so I thank him for that. This House has just passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and I believe we have done a great job on that. The Act addresses compliance with article 44 in relation to extraterritorial jurisdiction. However, there are issues with our treatment of women migrants and spousal visas, for example, that we must seek to address—not to sign off on the convention, but simply to do the right thing by these sometimes very vulnerable women. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[John Howell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I agree with him. We need to do the right thing, but the right thing in this case is to ratify the treaty. The treaty sums up the whole approach to the protection of women, and it is the treaty that right across Europe provides women with the confidence that they have protection.

The convention also establishes a specific monitoring mechanism to ensure effective implementation of its provisions by individual countries. It is worth stopping for a moment to look at what the convention covers. I have a list, which I hope is comprehensive, of the things it covers: stalking; sexual harassment; sexual violence, including rape; physical and psychological abuse, including at the hands of intimate partners; forced marriage; forced sterilisation; female genital mutilation; and forced abortion. In all of those areas, as far as I can see, we have already done quite a lot to be able to take the treaty forward. If we think of the work that we have done against female genital mutilation, for example, we have been setting a lead across the European continent. Not only women and girls suffer domestic violence. Parties to the convention—the countries that have ratified it—are encouraged to apply the protective framework that it creates to men too, so that they are covered by the convention, because they, too, suffer violence.

The purpose of this debate is to hear from the Minister what we have done, what we are doing and what we are likely to do, and to hear a bit about the timetable for that. The Governments that have ratified the convention agree to take a number of steps. They agree to train professionals so as to have close contact with victims; to regularly run awareness-raising campaigns; and to take steps to include issues such as gender equality and non-violent conflict. They agree to have a go at resolving the issue of interpersonal relationships in teaching materials and to set up treatment programmes for perpetrators of domestic violence and sex offenders. They agree to work closely with non-governmental organisations and civil society in general.

Most importantly, those Governments agree to involve the media and the private sector in eradicating gender stereotypes and promoting mutual respect, because preventing violence against women and domestic violence should not be left simply to the state alone. It is important that all members of society, men and boys in particular, should help in that process in order to make a good stand.

When preventive measures have failed and violent incidents have happened, it is important to provide victims and witnesses with protection and support. Some examples of the measures set forth in the convention include granting the police the power to remove a perpetrator of domestic violence from his or her home in situations of immediate danger. There is a whole list of other activities recommended by the convention.

The convention also recommends that countries have to introduce a number of new criminal offences, if they do not already exist. Those include psychological and physical violence, and laws against sexual violence, including rape, stalking, female genital mutilation and those other areas, as I said.

The Minister kindly spoke to the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee a little while ago, setting out a lot of what we are about. She said that we are complying with the convention and, indeed, exceeding the requirements of the convention in all but three areas. I would like her to set out how we are exceeding the convention, because that would be helpful. The three areas that she mentioned were psychological violence, extraterritorial jurisdiction and non-discrimination relating to refugee or migrant residency status in the UK.

Northern Ireland is not yet compliant with article 33 of the treaty, but it will be once the new domestic abuse offence in its Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 is implemented by the Assembly. I understand that will come before the Assembly again to be sorted out, probably in the autumn of this year.

The issue is of enormous concern to us and to our European allies. A lot of work has been done, but I want to press on the Government that, as soon as we possibly can, we should ratify the treaty. One of the biggest pieces of work to take the treaty forward is the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which has done so much to turbocharge what we as a country are doing to tackle some of the individual crimes against women and girls. Domestic abuse affects about 2.5 million adult victims in England and Wales, so it is a big activity to target.

On those three areas that we are not yet reaching—I think the Minister will agree—the UK has clear measures on how to address those gaps in the law. It would be useful for her to set out how we are dealing with them.

The convention is really important. We signed up to it in absolute good faith in 2012. We have wanted to go beyond the convention and I have commented on that. However, I hope that Members will treat the Minister kindly, because she has been a great champion of the convention. Building on the recommendation for the protection of women against violence, the convention for the first time in Europe sets out a legally binding standard to prevent violence against women and domestic violence, to protect the victims and to punish the perpetrators. That is a very important element for us to rejoice in, and to be able to take forward.

Violence against women seriously violates and impacts on, or nullifies, the enjoyment by women of their human rights, and in particular their fundamental rights to life, security, freedom, dignity, and physical and emotional integrity. It therefore cannot be ignored by Governments—I am not suggesting that this Government are ignoring it; I am simply stating that as a fact that comes out of this treaty. Governments must recognise that such violence affects not only women, but society as a whole, and that urgent action is required to take this forward. With those remarks, I leave it to the Minister to respond, because I know that she has to appear in the House of Commons shortly, and I want to give her time to be able to give this issue a good outing and to make her meeting.

11:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

As always, Mr Hollobone, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this important debate on the Istanbul convention. I pay tribute to his leadership on the Council of Europe in many areas, but in particular in the area of tackling violence against women and girls and the Istanbul convention. We signed the convention in 2012, signalling our strong commitment to tackling violence against women and girls, and we remain absolutely committed to ratifying it as soon as possible.

However, before I discuss the United Kingdom’s progress towards ratification, I will take a moment to address Turkey’s recent decision to withdraw from the convention. We are very disappointed by this action and have, alongside our partners, publicly urged Turkey to reconsider its position. My hon. Friend the Minister for European Neighbourhood and the Americas has raised Turkey’s regrettable decision with the Turkish ambassador and her Turkish counterpart. The UK has also endorsed statements of criticism by UN Women, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s permanent council, and the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley has been equally tireless in raising his concerns, including through the report that he presented to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe last month about the functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey.

[John Howell]

I should just add that I am also the rapporteur on Turkey for the Council of Europe. This is a major issue that we bring up time and again with the Council of Europe, in order to make sure that Turkey knows what it is doing on this— because it was done by presidential decree—and to get it to reverse its decision, if we can.

[Victoria Atkins]

Very much so. It is not acceptable for Turkey to seek to excuse its own actions by referencing other countries, including the United Kingdom; it is responsible for its own decisions. In fact, we are proud that the United Kingdom is recognised around the world as a global leader in tackling violence against women and girls. We are delighted to be co-leading the new Generation Equality Forum’s global action coalition on gender-based violence. We will use this platform to protect and promote the safety and rights of women and girls in all their diversity, and call for all member states to remain committed to international conventions, including the Istanbul convention.

However, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the United Kingdom insists on implementing measures and laws before ratifying international conventions, and that is the approach we have maintained while considering this convention. We have in play some of the most robust measures in the world to protect women and girls from violence and, in all but three respects, we comply with, or indeed go further than, what the convention requires.

[Mrs Miller]

I am listening very carefully to the Minister’s argument, and she is absolutely right to say that, as a nation, we want to make sure that we sign up only to things that we know we can adhere to, but this is a treaty that was signed in 2012—almost a decade ago. Leaving such a long time before ratification allows countries such as Turkey to take other meanings from the delay that has occurred in the UK.

[Victoria Atkins]

In a little while, I am going to encourage countries to follow our lead on some of the measures we have taken, including in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, in which my right hon. Friend played such a vital role in her work chairing the joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill. I will address the timeframe in a moment.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021, to which colleagues of different parties have referred in their contributions, will transform the response across all agencies for victims and their children. We have also introduced new guidance for professionals, as well as a range of new protective tools, such as protection orders for FGM, stalking and forced marriage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley set out, the range of crimes, and the range of forms that violence against women and girls can take, is very wide and very harmful. As I say, however, there are three outstanding issues to address before we can comply fully with the convention.

The main obstacle delaying our ratification has been compliance with article 44, which relates to extraterritorial jurisdiction. All parts of the United Kingdom need to obtain the power to prosecute their nationals and residents for certain violent and sexual offences committed overseas. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 includes the necessary provisions, which will make all parts of the UK compliant with article 44. I am pleased to inform the House that the extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions for England and Wales will be implemented automatically on 29 June, and I understand that Scottish and Northern Irish Ministers also plan to commence their provisions within a similar timeframe. That will be a significant milestone towards ratification. The only exception to that timescale will be extraterritorial jurisdiction for psychological violence in Northern Ireland.

That brings me to the second issue, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has addressed—namely, article 33 and psychological violence. Unlike England, Wales and Scotland, Northern Ireland is not yet compliant with article 33, because it does not have in force an offence that criminalises psychological violence. The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, which became law in March and should be implemented by the autumn, provides for a new domestic abuse offence that would criminalise psychological violence in Northern Ireland. Extraterritorial jurisdiction for that offence will be implemented at the same time, representing the last piece in the jigsaw for article 44. Once that offence is implemented, the UK as a whole will be fully compliant with article 33—the second significant milestone towards ratification.

The final outstanding area concerns migrant victims of domestic abuse and relates to articles 3, 4 and 59. In April last year, I announced that the Government were committing £1.5 million in this financial year to fund the support for migrant victims scheme, in order to provide protection and support for vulnerable migrant victims who are unable to access public funds. The scheme launched in April and is intended to run until 31 March 2022. The Government will use this pilot scheme to better assess the level of need for such victims, and to inform evidence-based long-term funding and policy decisions. Therefore, the compliance position for those articles is under review, pending the evaluation and findings for the support for migrant victims scheme.

I understand the frustration that we have not yet been able to ratify the convention. I can reassure hon. Members that we are doing everything we can to ensure that ratification happens as soon as possible within that context, and I must emphasise again that we are taking significant action to tackle violence against women and girls, including going further than the convention requires us to do in many instances. Indeed, I hope other countries will look at what we have achieved in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and non-legislative measures. Perhaps, dare I say, they will follow our lead. For example, only last year we launched the successful #YouAreNotAlone campaign to ensure that victims of abuse, and people worried about friends and family, know how to access help and advice. As of March, the campaign is estimated to have reached 35 million people.

Another example: in January, we launched the Ask for ANI codeword scheme to support victims of domestic abuse, with around 5,000 pharmacies participating. This scheme alone has already helped more than 70 victims and their families to escape domestic abuse. Throughout the pandemic, our absolute priority has been ensuring that victims can continue to access crucial support services. We have provided more than £28 million to domestic abuse organisations, including boosting helplines, web services and refuges, and we have provided additional funding to help victims of sexual violence and modern slavery, as well as vulnerable children.

However, we want to go even further. Since 2010, we have created two new stalking offences, criminalised forced marriage, and committed to reviewing the way in which the criminal justice system responds to rape. Later this year, we will publish a new violence against women and girls strategy, which will help us to target perpetrators and support victims, while enhancing our ability to tackle emerging crime types, such as revenge porn and other online offences. Our determination to listen to women and girls in order to shape our strategies—both violence against women and girls and tackling domestic abuse—is proven by our decision to run the first-ever public survey on violence against women and girls.

Following the tragic events earlier this year, during which thousands of women and girls shared their own experiences of violence against women and girls, the Home Secretary reopened the public survey so that more people could contribute to this vital work. I am pleased to tell the House that that survey has received around 180,000 responses, which anyone who keeps an eye on Government surveys will appreciate is an extremely high level of response. I am incredibly grateful to everyone who took part in that survey. Their contributions are being analysed and will be absolutely invaluable in helping us to shape this new strategy, as well as the specific complementary domestic abuse strategy which we are publishing later this year.

On the progress of the Istanbul convention, as required by law, we will publish our next annual progress report on ratification of this by 1 November. On the details of where we are complying and exceeding measures, our most recent ministerial statement sets out details of the convention. I would very much like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley for raising these important issues, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Gentleman for Strangford for their contributions. I am grateful to them for allowing me the opportunity to address the Government’s position.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Support for Children Entitled to Free School Meals

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

14:30

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate, and there will also be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall, and they are expected to remain for the entire debate. I also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to us here in the Boothroyd Room.

If Members who are attending virtually have any technical problems, can they email the Westminster Hall Clerks? I think everyone was emailed with the instructions this morning, but the address is westminsterhallclerks @parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them, and as they leave the room. I think there are baby wipes for everyone. Mr Speaker has also reminded Members to wear masks in Westminster Hall unless they are speaking; the Chair is exempt, because we may need to speak at any time, but apart from me, everyone should have their mask on. Members can only speak from a place with a microphone, but I think everybody is in the right place.

14:31

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for children entitled to free school meals.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.

The UK is a rich country. As a G7 nation with a GDP that many countries can only look at in envy, we simply must do more to provide for our own citizens and combat the ever-increasing levels of child poverty. With huge wealth in many parts of the country and an economy with the most potential in Europe, we can do far better than we are, and MPs should not need to apply for debates such as the one we are having today. However, across the country and in this very city, the richest 1% live a gilded life, a handful of streets away from the most deprived neighbourhoods in the most unequal areas. We live on the same streets; we walk the same streets; but we inhabit different worlds. We are a deeply unequal society, and the fact that so many families rely on the meagre support available from the state to feed their children is nothing short of a national outrage. It is a clear demonstration that our economic system is not working for so many.

In some local authority areas, child poverty is reaching 50%, while the wealth of the richest 1% has grown exponentially. As per The Sunday Times’ rich list, printed last Sunday, the richest man in the country saw his wealth grow by £7 billion last year, while in my own borough of Haringey, some 8,000 children—a staggering 29%—rely on free school meals. That figure has increased by 1,700 over the past year. The Trussell Trust has said that over 50% of those using its food banks had never used one before this year, so we are seeing a huge increase. Some 1 million eight to 17-year-olds visited a food bank in the months of December and January—I would like the Minister to dwell on that for a moment. We see this stark inequality among many families in every part of London, and not just in London: people are relying on state support to feed their children, not through any fault of their own but as a damning indictment of the soaring cost of living and the broken economic system. Families are facing above-inflation increases in water and fuel bills and the Government’s council tax increases, and family budgets are at breaking point.

Outside London, Labour analysis has shown that the number of children eligible for free schools meals has increased in nearly every region and nation of the UK. It would be wrong to say that this rise in entitlement is purely down to the pandemic. Analysis released in March by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that child poverty had been increasing for six years before the pandemic hit, with three quarters of children growing up in poverty being from a working family. That is because many people are being paid paltry national minimum wage levels. Where families get the London living wage, or the living wage outside of London, it increases the likelihood that they will be able to pay for nutritious food. The shadow Education Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), is right to say that feeding kids is not a half-time activity—a reference to Marcus Rashford.

What is also clear beyond any doubt is the wider and life-long impact of the poverty and deprivation faced by children eligible for free school meals. While these children will have support during school hours, for other parts of the week and throughout the year when they are not in school, they face going hungry and their attainment, health and prospects will suffer. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on school food, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), has shown in this House over a number of years, statistics have repeatedly shown that this has a serious impact on the rest of a child’s education, with far lower numbers of those on free school meals attending university, compared with their peers who are not.

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

The hon. Lady has outlined the fact that child poverty is rising, and has been rising for a number of years. In light of that, does she share my shock and disappointment that today at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that child poverty was falling, showing that he does not actually understand the scale of the problem, much less how to fix it?

[Catherine West]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not sure whether it is ignorance, or not wanting to tell the truth. All who have signed up to this debate know what our inboxes are showing, what our constituents tell us when they walk in the door, and we know that things are getting worse. One of the poor health outcomes is on people’s teeth. Research from the British Dental Association has shown that 11% of children in England have tooth decay by three years old, which rises to 23% by the time they are five and reaching school. Even though this is completely preventable, it continues to be the No. 1 reason why children aged five to nine are admitted to hospital in the UK. With a rise in free school-meal entitlement because of grinding levels of child poverty, this is no surprise.

Problems with teeth can have an impact on a child’s ability to sleep, concentrate in school or develop good speech and language skills. We need to take action and be bold in our approach through a less threadbare welfare system and a more generous system of school meals provision. We also know the importance of action before school, such as breakfast clubs. As a former council leader, I wanted to know which schools did not have a breakfast club so I could ask them to put one on. Not only do they help working families to have children in school on time and have an early start, they also show that where breakfast is of a high quality, it helps enormously with academic achievement and concentration. Teachers say that, with good nutrition, children’s behaviour is good right through into the afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who used to be a teacher, will confirm that. Likewise, after-school activities should provide healthy options because, for some children who are in school for many, many hours, this could be the only hot meal—at lunchtime and then in the afternoon—that they might have, so it is incredibly important.

Members in this House have championed the need to address school holiday hunger, and I hope that the national food strategy will focus the minds of Minsters on that, so that we address what is going to be a very long break this summer, with many people on really low incomes.

I will conclude soon, but I am sure the points that I have made are abundantly clear. In response to the very good debate earlier this week on a similar topic, I will make a short point. We do not want to make this particular topic very party political. We want everyone to pull together, but sadly when the Prime Minister mentions that child poverty is reducing, and we know that child poverty is not reducing, that is when it becomes political. When a footballer has to lead the charge because many MPs vote against children having nutritional food during the school holidays that is when it becomes something that really hits home, and something we must do something about.

In conclusion, this is the prescription for the levels of child poverty that we are seeing: first, to make the £20 universal credit uplift permanent; secondly, more help for families with fuel bills, water bills and council tax; thirdly, high-quality debt advice—too many households rely on buy now, pay later financial products, which quickly become unaffordable; fourthly, help with housing costs—too many families spend over a third of their income on expensive rent payments. Shelter, the charity that specialises in housing, recommends no more than 35%, but far too many families are spending way over 35% on housing payments, which does not leave enough to pay for food. Fifthly, childcare costs: if a family has two children in childcare, the cost is often more than rent, so that needs to be urgently addressed.

Britain’s children deserve better. We have the wealth in our society to deliver a better society for all our citizens. We need a Government with a heart to act. I implore the Minister to do her utmost to address this full-on. We must not sit on our hands; it cannot take any further debates or votes in Parliament. Do what is right. Work with us and implement the policies that we need to be a real and noticeable help to families.

14:41

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) on securing this important debate.

Before coming to this place, I was a schoolteacher. I saw first-hand the impact of free school meals. Access to a healthy meal can make such a difference to a child’s learning and health. Over the last year, we have all seen headlines about holiday hunger and the fact that too many children go hungry in the school holidays, as families struggle to meet the rising cost of living throughout the pandemic.

In my constituency, 25% of 0 to 15 year-olds live in poverty. Take a moment to consider that statistic: a quarter of children in Barnsley live in poverty. More than 3,000 children are currently eligible for free school meals. As has been mentioned, the Trussell Trust has reported that almost 1 million emergency food parcels were given to children in the last year alone—a 36% rise on the previous year. We should take this opportunity to praise Marcus Rashford for his work to highlight the issue, and for shaming the Government into a U-turn on their decision not to feed hungry kids during school holidays. It should not require a public shaming for that to happen, and it is telling that not a single Tory MP is here for the debate, other than the Minister who is required to be here.

Last week, I visited the holiday hunger project run by Barnsley Council, to see the great work it is doing with the help of volunteers. Barnsley Council is committed to providing good quality food hampers that meet its school meal standards. The good food boxes are provided by the council’s in-house school catering service. Almost 10,000 children were eligible during the Easter holidays. Of that number, more than 2,000 families applied for a box, and 4,000 boxes were put together. That was a huge task for the council, but it could only reach 42% of children. Sadly, the number of eligible children is only set to rise. The Government are funding only half the holidays, leaving the rest of the burden on already cash- strapped councils such as mine in Barnsley. My council has stepped up to the challenge and delivered for our children, despite having its budget cut by 33% since 2010, and despite the financial burden of covid-19. Without urgent and direct action, the problem will only get worse.

14:43

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) on securing this important debate.

When it comes to what should be a primary role of Government—ensuring that our children have enough food so they can concentrate in school—this Administration should be ashamed of themselves. Recent figures published by Trussell Trust show that nearly 10,000 food parcels were delivered in Leicester over the past year, of which more than 2,000 went to children. The most shocking statistic is that the number of food parcels delivered to adults increased by 303% between March 2020 and March 2021. For children, the increase was 166% during the same period. During the same period during the pandemic, the wealth of UK billionaires increased by 22% to £597 billion. Given the extensive range of faith and community organisations engaged in food bank delivery in my constituency alone, even these shocking figures from the Trussell Trust do not give a complete picture of food bank usage in Leicester. The actual figure is much higher.

One way to limit the reliance on food banks is to ensure that children receive the food that they need at school, as is the case in countries such as Sweden and Finland that provide universal school meals for all. In Leicester East, over 7,000 school-aged children were living in poverty before the coronavirus pandemic hit, yet only 3,300 were eligible for free school meals. That means that nearly 4,000 children in Leicester East were not eligible for free school meals, despite living below the poverty line. That will have worsened during the pandemic, especially as there are now 11,113 children trapped in poverty in my constituency.

The current free school meals threshold is very low, requiring an annual income of £7,400 or less. This means that two in five children living below the poverty line do not qualify for free school meals. The Government are happy to fork out millions to private consultants and large companies, yet balk at the prospect of guaranteeing food for vulnerable children. I believe that the Government must follow Marcus Rashford’s campaigning, and significantly widen access to free school meals and improve their quality. The temporary extension of free school meals to children from families with no recourse to public funds must be extended further, and this callous policy must then be scrapped for good.

Some 4.3 million children are living in poverty in the UK, which is nine children in every classroom of 30. In my constituency of Leicester East that is almost one in two children, as 42% of children are living in poverty. These figures have become entrenched because of the policy choices that have been made, yet the pandemic has also caused a sharp rise in food insecurity. Some 12% of households with children experienced food insecurity between August 2020 and January 2021, and that figure includes 2.3 million children.

Children enduring food insecurity during term time are at increased risk of food insecurity during the school holidays, especially in families who are forced to attend food banks. The Government must make their holiday food schemes both more generous and permanent. The Government must extend and increase the uplift to universal credit, scrap the two-child limit and remove the benefit cap. A long-term, more universal and generous benefits policy must be considered, alongside introducing a statutory right to food for everyone in the UK.

I volunteer with many food banks in my community and I know, from first-hand experience, the incredible selflessness that is involved. While they are currently necessary due to widespread poverty in Leicester and across the country, the overreliance on food banks is a symptom of our unacceptably unequal society. It is appalling that in one of the world’s richest countries workers are paid poverty wages and are forced to live on the generosity of others. It is even worse that not all children who are living in poverty are eligible to receive a proper meal at school. I urge the Government to work with us on this side of the House and fight for a future that is built around solidarity and dignity for every child, no matter their background, in which poverty, child hunger and food banks are a thing of the past.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Patricia Gibson will be speaking at the end of the debate as one of the Front-Bench spokespersons, so I call Siobhain McDonagh.

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

I am sorry, Chair, but I wondered if I could be delayed slightly?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

We have Jim Shannon, who has just made it over from the main Chamber. Are you ready, Jim?

14:49

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Ms Huq. It is an absolute pleasure to speak on this issue. I have applied to speak in such debates a great many times but they have always unfortunately been over-subscribed. I thought that if the opportunity came my way today, I would certainly try to make a contribution. I have said this many times, and I think it is probably the same for us all as elected representatives: one of the things we always reflect in our speeches is our own constituency issues, and child poverty and free school meals has been a massive issue through the lockdown period in my constituency.

I am clear that the Minister does not have responsibility for back home, but I want to reflect those comments in the debate. I must say—she will know this—that she and I share the fact that we were both born in Omagh in County Tyrone, so we have got something that unites us. Indeed, more than one thing unites us, but sharing the same home town is one of them.

Of all the resources this great nation has, our children are the most important. Indeed, their education must be paramount, and a part of that education is ensuring that children can concentrate and are well fed. In many cases we are, unfortunately, failing some of those children.

My home town of Newtownards—the major town of the constituency of Strangford—was the first place in Northern Ireland to have a Trussell Trust food bank. It has become an integral part of everyday life for many people in Strangford, and indeed across the whole of Northern Ireland, where there are now 13 or maybe 15 major food banks plus a lot of smaller ones. In the last year, almost 1 million emergency food parcels were given to children: a record high and a 36% rise on the previous year. That is higher than the increase for adults, which stood at 32%. It is therefore obvious that the issue for children is even greater than for adults, but in many cases the adults will ensure that the children get the first crack of the whip.

The number of emergency food parcels provided to children by food banks in the Trussell Trust network was already rising year on year before the pandemic hit. I see the food banks as a plus for the area and not necessarily as a negative, because they unite all the Departments and bring church groups, individuals and people who want to help together, and through the food banks they can give some of the help and assistance that is needed. The figures for 2020-21 represent a 135% increase in need compared with 2015-16. Single parents and larger families are at particular risk of needing to turn to a food bank. Single-parent households are highly over-represented at food banks, with 90% of households in early 2020 being single-parent families—more than twice the proportion in the wider population.

My constituency office in Newtownards is one of the bodies that hands out vouchers for food banks and we are told that we are the biggest contact point for the food banks in the constituency. It is important that we recognise how critical food banks are for people in the area. Larger families are also at particular risk, with 39% of families—two in five—referred to food banks in early 2020 having three or more children. In the general population, just one in seven families—14%—has three or more children. That gives an idea of how that particular category is affected. The figure has risen from 36% since 2018, which suggests that those with three or more children may be at particular risk due to policies such as the two-child limit and the benefit cap. A colleague of my good friend the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) has spoken on so many occasions about the two-child policy, and I support her on that.

I want to give a quick plug for the Education Minister in Northern Ireland and what he did by making sure that food vouchers were available in schools. That was a Rashford campaign, but our Minister responded immediately. Perhaps we should look towards the summer to put ourselves in a position where we are able to offer continuity should there be a need for that help.

It is imperative that we retain free school meals and expand the remit for longer. We must invest in the next generation. I know that the future is about my five grandchildren—two are at school; three are yet to get there—and everyone else’s grandchildren, so I believe it is the wisest investment that we can make, and I support the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) in her calls for that. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

Although it is a real pleasure to be able to speak today, it is disturbing to be speaking in a debate about children going hungry, especially as the UK is the fifth richest country in the world by GDP. A quarter of the country’s wealth is held by a mere 1% of the population, however. That is an absolute shame. That is why, in 2021, I and other Members are still having to call on the Government to keep children fed during the school holidays.

The issue of food poverty goes well beyond children relying on free school meals; it affects our whole community. Indeed, it is a crisis of the Government’s own making. Cuts to funding have resulted in a reduction of local authorities’ spend, which has meant the loss of youth services and children’s social services. The cuts have also reduced the third sector’s capacity to deliver services and, in some cases, the ability of those services to exist at all. In my borough of Lewisham, the council has to make additional £28 million of cuts for this coming year, after 11 difficult years of austerity. Schools desperately want to support families in need, but they have also had their own budgets decimated.

Members have already heard this, but they will hear it again: the Joseph Rowntree Foundation writes that

“food poverty is just poverty”

and that the only way to solve poverty is

“with better jobs, affordable homes and strong social security.”

I agree. Too many adults continue to struggle through jobs that are high effort but low income. Indeed, food banks in my constituency, like those in other Members’ constituencies, have seen a rise in users and people suffering from in-work poverty. Those people may have two or three jobs, but still have little security and measly wages. They are struggling, their families are struggling, and the people around them are struggling.

Universal credit’s initial five-week delay to benefits harms families by presuming that debt is the norm. That was ludicrous at the beginning and remains ludicrous now. Universal credit works against women as it is only paid into one person’s bank account, and its two-child limit discriminates against families. Child Poverty Action Group estimates that childcare costs have risen by 42% since 2008, but child benefit has not risen accordingly. With rising rents in London and higher energy bills as a result of the pandemic, families repeatedly have to make sacrifices to make ends meet. Many parents are themselves going without food so that they can feed their children.

That is a miserable and cruel situation for any parent, but it is not inevitable. The last Labour Government brought 900,000 children out of poverty. We can do it and we must do it, so why are we not doing it again? The real question is this: why have this Government chosen to keep children in food poverty?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

From south-east London to south-west London, and from the virtual world to the Boothroyd Room, I call Siobhain McDonagh.

14:58

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

Thank you for your indulgence, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) on securing the debate. At the heart of this issue, Marcus Rashford scored the most important goal of his career, using his platform to highlight that food poverty is not restricted just to school term times. It was a campaign of which any left winger wearing red would be proud.

I will argue that support for children who are entitled to free school meals should be about far more than just the food, because when schools closed, it was not just lunch that disadvantaged children missed out on, but connectivity. Through the lockdown, millions of children started the day with Joe Wicks’ online exercise classes. They completed schoolwork sent remotely by their teachers, and they joined their classmates in live remote-learning lessons. It was not perfect, but it was an extraordinary feat, achieved thanks to the dedication of our teachers and to the support and patience of home-schooling parents. However, the lockdown exposed the digital divide in our society.

About 30% of private school pupils attended four or more online lessons per day during the first lockdown, but just 6.3% of state school pupils did the same. That is no surprise considering that one in five children did not always have access to a device for online learning while schools were closed. How does the Minister think those children logged in and learnt from home? The simple answer is, they did not. Those without have fallen behind even further.

The Government’s roll-out of devices was nothing short of shambolic: 5% of teachers in state schools reported that all their students had a device, compared with 54% at private schools. The Minister may point to those devices that finally were distributed, but the conclusion of the National Audit Office in March was utterly damning. The Department for Education did not even aim to provide equipment to all children who lacked it. Every click simply widened the attainment gap. So much for levelling up!

With schools open and lockdown lifting, this is no problem of the past. The days of pen and paper are long gone, and the technological age we now live in is here to stay. Homework, research, resources, catch-up—so much is now online. The consequences for those children on the wrong side of the digital divide is that they are now even more disadvantaged than before.

This afternoon, we debate the support that should be provided for children entitled to free school meals. I say to the Minister that support must be about more than just food. I am calling for all children entitled to free school meals to have internet access and an adequate device, so that they can log in and catch up from home. I recognise that free school meals are not a perfect indicator, but it is the best we have. Compared with the vast sums squandered through the pandemic, this is a low-cost, straightforward and tangible step forward. It is no silver bullet, but it would make a life-changing difference to children on the wrong side of the digital divide.

Take 10-year-old Abi in my constituency. In lockdown, she secured entry to the Tiffin Girls’ School, one of the most prestigious grammar schools in the country. She was working from a cramped homeless hostel, with only a refurbished smartphone to get her connected, one of 140 given to me by Tesco Mobile. Social mobility, levelling up—call it whatever you want—the impact for Abi was lifelong.

[Catherine West]

I put on the record my hon. Friend’s excellent work on the digital divide during the pandemic. It was right at the beginning, when highlighting it made such an impact. Of course, we all jumped on it when she raised the matter, but I wanted to put on the record the huge impact that had for so many children and learners in our society. A debt of gratitude is owed by so many families to her work.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I thank my hon. Friend. So many people got involved in providing devices, such as football clubs like my own AFC Wimbledon, which has now donated more than 2,000 refurbished laptops. I thank all those charities that did such work. While it was brilliant work, however, it cannot be enough—the Government need to step in.

I hope that the Minister will consider the merits of my proposal to provide devices and an internet connection to all children on free school meals. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss how it could be rolled out in practice. It took the intervention of a premier league footballer for Ministers to agree that no child should go to bed hungry. What will it take before we all agree that no child should be left behind because of their internet connection?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

A good bit of lateral thinking in that speech, but it made it worth the wait. We now come to the three Front Benchers. We start with the SNP.

15:04

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

I am glad to be able to participate in today’s important debate about support for children in receipt of free school meals, and I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for securing it. What we are really talking about, of course, is child poverty, and only on Tuesday, we had quite a similar debate to the one we are having today. During that debate, I pointed out the chilling similarities between welfare arrangements as they are today and the kind of support that was offered to the poorest in society in the 1834 new Poor Law. I know that some people will scoff at that comparison, but I am willing to sit down with anybody and talk them through the similarities, which are striking.

As delighted as I am to see the Minister in her place, it is quite telling that when we have debates about child hunger and child poverty, no Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions is prepared to stand up and defend the policies of their own Department. Those watching, as well as those participating, will draw their own conclusions from that fact.

We know that for some children, the free school meal that they receive during the school day may be the only proper meal—the only hot meal—they will have on that particular day. We also know that only one third of children who claim free school meals achieve five or more good GCSE grades or equivalent, compared with two thirds of children whose families are in better circumstances. This is not surprising, given that underneath the free school meal figures is the more pernicious challenge of child poverty, which free school meals alone cannot even begin to address.

In Scotland, the SNP Government are expanding free school breakfasts and lunches to every primary school pupil and every child in state-funded special schools. That way, there is no stigma, and no child will fall through the net. Best Start food payments across Scotland are increasing to £4.50 a week, and eligibility will increase by about 50%, to all in receipt of universal credit.

There is a tale of two Governments here, because while the UK Government scrapped targets to reduce child poverty, the SNP Government in Scotland have set ambitious targets to work towards eradicating child poverty. The Scottish child payment of £10 a week per child for those on qualifying benefits will increase to £20 a week per child, assisting 450,000 children across Scotland, a measure that the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland has paid tribute to.

Meanwhile, the UK Government’s mean-spiritedness is laid bare as they refuse to commit to retaining the £20 uplift in universal credit for the poorest families, and scrap targets to reduce child poverty while presiding over a rise in it, with a Prime Minister who—it gives me no pleasure to say this—does not even seem to be aware that child poverty is rising. That will not inspire confidence in my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, nor, I would imagine, in any other constituency.

While the SNP Scottish Government are doing all they can to tackle this social ill with all the limited powers that they have, 85% of control over welfare is reserved to the Westminster Government. That is where the real solutions can be found, if there is the political will to implement them. However, we know that the current welfare system does not fulfil its avowed aim. Apart from the fact that in the past year, the Trussell Trust delivered a food parcel every 2.5 minutes, if the goal of welfare is to support and assist those who are able to work to re-enter the job market, it seems that the system is not fulfilling that goal: otherwise, there would be no five-week wait for support. There would be no advance payments, which force those who eventually receive universal credit and are therefore living on, or beyond, the breadline to be deemed capable of paying back these advance payments, throwing claimants further and further into financial despair and further and further away from the job market.

I have said this to the Minister before, so it will not surprise her to hear me say it again: no reputable lender would lend money to somebody on universal credit, because they understand that they do not have the means to repay that loan. However, the DWP is quite happy to lend money to claimants in the full knowledge that their attempts to repay it will put them in deep financial distress. Why on earth would anyone design a system along those principles?

Even now, in 2021, we know about the disgrace of children in our communities going to school hungry. We know that free school meals are really important, but we also know that we need to do more to address the deep poverty too many children currently live in, and we know it goes well beyond the material. Most children living in poverty have at least one parent in work, and I wonder whether the Minister is at all disturbed by that.

Although we lack the political will in the Westminster Government, we also know that there are things we can do to address some of the really pernicious problems that are aggravating and fixing child poverty in a very stubborn way. We could replace advance payments, which are loans that people cannot pay back without real hardship. We could get rid of the five-week wait. We could also actually talk about a real living wage as opposed to the wee, pretendy living wage currently trumpeted by the UK Government.

I do not know whether anybody in this debate shares my shock and horror about the Prime Minister saying today in Prime Minister’s questions that child poverty is falling. One of the many reasons why that is so disturbing is that, only this week, the DWP released figures showing that 4.3 million children were living in relative poverty in the UK in 2019-20—an increase from 4.1 million in the previous year. That amounts to one in three children —31% of children—living in poverty. Those statistics predate the pandemic, so we know that the figures are even higher as we sit in this Chamber.

We also know of the serious impact that living in poverty has on children’s wellbeing. Disadvantaged children are four and a half times more likely to develop severe mental health problems by age 11 than their well-off peers. Children in poor housing are more at risk of respiratory illnesses and meningitis. Those in the most disadvantaged areas can expect 20 fewer years of good health than children in places with more resources and affluence. I wonder whether the Minister finds that as disturbing as I do.

We know there is a direct correlation between poverty and under-attainment at school, so if we do not tackle child poverty with every weapon in our armoury, we can forget tackling the attainment gap. As we have heard, school closures during the pandemic have hit the most deprived children hardest, and will undoubtedly widen an already worrying attainment gap, especially in the short term. I look forward to hearing what new and additional poverty measures the Minister thinks can be brought forward in view of the decisive impacts that poverty has on educational attainment.

Not tackling poverty is a significant cost to the state, so I hope that the Minister’s plans for preventive spending to tackle child poverty will be revealed to us today, because that would be the wisest and most humane course of action.

15:13

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, for the first time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for securing this important debate, and for her powerful speeches today and at the debate on Monday. She is right that it is a national outrage that our country is so unequal, with an economic system so broken that so many parents are forced to rely on inadequate support from the state to feed their children, despite their best efforts.

I really regret the fact that not a single Conservative MP has chosen to speak in today’s debates. Yet, a few years ago, this very same room was packed with Conservative Members who wanted to defend Donald Trump’s right to a state visit. With over half a million children qualifying for free school meals since March last year, a debate on this support has never been more important. Free school meals are often the only hot meal that some children get all day, and they are a lifeline for many families who are struggling to make ends meet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) set out so clearly, drawing on her experience as a teacher in a previous life. The huge rise in free school meals eligibility is therefore very significant and further evidence of how devastating covid-19 has been for family budgets.

There was a very real and growing problem with child poverty in this country before the pandemic, and we have seen today the new, shocking statistic that more than one in five Londoners in working households live in poverty. We also heard powerful testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) about the huge increase in food parcels delivered by the Trussell Trust in this pandemic. The fact that more than 2 million children have now been pushed into food insecurity and that hundreds of thousands have been forced to skip meals in the pandemic has really shone a light on the need to ensure that proper free school meal support is delivered to all children who need it all year round.

However, that realisation, which has been obvious to pretty much everybody, particularly after Marcus Rashford’s powerful campaigns, has not come as easily to Government Ministers. I am sad to say that they have had to be dragged kicking and screaming time and again to do the right thing. I do not take any pleasure from this, but the Prime Minister’s right-hand man told us today that his boss decided to “pick a fight” with Marcus Rashford over free school meals rather than take action to feed hungry children in a pandemic.

What did the Government do? They initially refused to extend free school meals over last summer, when millions were being forced to apply for unemployment benefits. They whipped Conservative MPs to vote against providing free school meals over the October 2020 half- term through to Easter this year. They presided over a moment of national shame in January, when utterly woeful food parcels, which were near-identical to the Government’s own guidance, were given out, and then they voted against Labour’s motion to ensure that families get the full value of that support.

Just contrast us with Wales, where families have known from the start of the pandemic, and many months ahead of time, that the full value of free school meals would be available in every upcoming school holiday, and that is now guaranteed until Easter 2022. That is the leadership that we should have seen from the Prime Minister, who instead picked a fight with a premier league footballer. It astonishes me that, after all that failure and the uncertainty that the Government have put families through, they have still not learned the lessons and are still refusing to guarantee free school meals in the upcoming summer holidays.

I know that the Minister will point to the holiday activities and food programme, but the Government’s guidance on that scheme says that councils should provide just 16 days’ of food support over the entire six-week summer holiday. It does not say that that support should be guaranteed. The Local Government Association has said that

“the scheme is unlikely to see all eligible children participate and will not be suitable for everyone.”

I am extremely concerned that many children will miss out on that if they do not do the activities, and that there will be a postcode lottery in support. That is especially concerning in the light of the deep cuts to local government budgets, the impact of which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) spelled out so clearly in her powerful speech.

The failure to deliver free school meals is not the only way in which the Government have let down children who qualify for this support. Children on free school meals are less likely to have digital devices and internet connectivity than their peers, and there has been a failure to rectify that for home learning during school closures and self-isolation. Ministers have missed every single target for delivering laptops. Their schemes ensured that only a third to a half of those who needed one got one, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for her contribution, and her tireless campaigning for children on free school meals to get digital support.

Most recently, and perhaps most shockingly, the Government implemented a stealth cut to the pupil premium by excluding anyone who became eligible for free school meals since October last year from the calculation of how much more to give schools. Labour analysis of freedom of information data shows that more than 115,000 children will miss out on over £133 million of support as a result. There is no end to the ways that this Government are prepared to sideline the needs of some of the most disadvantaged children in the country.

I have a series of questions for the Minister. Why did the Prime Minister pick a fight with Marcus Rashford over free school meals? Why on earth are the Government implementing a cut to the pupil premium in the middle of a pandemic? Why will they not simply guarantee that all children who qualify will be able to get free school meals over the summer holiday? Why are the Government refusing to consider Labour’s suggestion of allowing families to get cash payments for this support? Are they still planning to withdraw free school meals support from children who have no recourse to public funds at some point? Finally, what steps are they taking to support children who do not qualify for free school meals but who, none the less, face food insecurity?

The point was made several times in the debate that, in a country as rich as ours, we should not need free school meals. At the very least, children should not be as reliant on them as they are right now. Sadly, they are a necessity because 4.3 million children in the UK live in poverty. For far too many people, work does not pay enough to live on. The Government spent 10 years gutting the social security system, and our economy is built on insecurity and inequality. All those things are getting worse as a direct result of policy choices over the last decade. We need to start making different choices as we emerge from the pandemic.

The Government need to show the moral courage and leadership required to eradicate child poverty and ensure that no child goes hungry. That starts with the Government learning the lessons from mistakes that led to children having to skip meals in the pandemic. I hope we will hear some humility from the Minister when she addresses our arguments. I look forward to her answering all the questions posed throughout the debate.

15:22

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I understand that at least one Member had endeavoured to speak in this debate, but had technical challenges. I thank you for raising that issue with the Speaker’s Office so that we can address it for future debates.

I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for securing this important debate, which enables us to continue the debate that we started on Monday. I said then, and I repeat, that this Government are absolutely dedicated to supporting all children and families, especially the most vulnerable. That is even more important during the pandemic, which has brought so many challenges to so many people.

During term time, the Government provide more than 1.6 million free school meals, providing pupils from the lowest-income families with a free, nutritious lunchtime meal. That helps them to concentrate, learn and achieve in the classroom. The Government have extended free school meal eligibility to more children than any other Government in the last half-century. We extended free school meals to all children in their infant years, and to eligible children in further education institutes. Last year, we expanded that free school meal offer to many families who normally have no recourse to public funds whatever.

As well as free school meals at lunchtime, the Government fund breakfast clubs in more than 2,450 schools in the most disadvantaged areas of the country. That supports more than a quarter of a million children. We have just announced another £24 million to continue that successful support for even more children.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) talked about the devolved Administration’s approach in Scotland. School food and free school meals are fully devolved, and all the devolved nations have a range of different food provision in place, including free meal support for families on welfare benefits. However, in England, we provide free school meals and milk to the children of those who are out of work and on the lowest incomes, and we have our national school milk subsidy scheme, universal free milk provision to all infant schools and our breakfast club programmes. We also have the school fruit and veg scheme, which we jointly fund with the Department for Health and Social Care and, of course, our fantastic holiday activities and food programme.

These days, the use of cashless payments in schools is normal. It is widespread, which means that free school meals pupils are not identifiable among their peers, which helps to remove decades of stigma. In terms of wider support, the Government are completely committed to levelling up for not only adults but people of all ages. That includes helping to raise the educational attainment of pupils from all income backgrounds, and especially those from lower-income backgrounds. We therefore ensure that those in greatest need of support have every chance to realise their potential. Investing in education is a key route to levelling up the playing field for all, so our pupil premium fund is additional support for children who have claimed free school meals at any point in the last six years, as well as children and young people who are in care or who have recently left care.

In 2020-21 alone we distributed £2.4 billion through the pupil premium, and that supported almost 2 million disadvantaged children across the country. School leaders know their pupils best, and schools have the autonomy to use the funding in the most effective way for their learners. That can include a mix of educational interventions and pastoral support. We know that working in that way has had a real impact on attainment. Against a background of rising school standards, disadvantaged pupils have been catching up on their non-disadvantaged peers. The attainment gap has narrowed at every stage from early years to age 16, and the majority of pupils from lower-income backgrounds now attend a good or outstanding school. Our education reforms and the focus provided by the pupil premium have supported that improvement.

From next year we will base the pupil premium on the October 2020 census instead of the January one, which will provide schools with greater certainty about future funding levels earlier in the year, helping them to plan ahead. It also brings the pupil premium in line with how the rest of the core schools budget is calculated. However, the change does not mean that the pupil premium is decreasing. On the contrary, we expect pupil premium funding to increase to more than £2.5 billion in this financial year. As a result we expect a typical school to see an increase in pupil premium funding from the last financial year. In addition, the £300 million recovery premium will be paid out for the same pupils as the pupil premium.

The Government also use the schools national funding formula to distribute mainstream school funding more fairly by looking at the needs of schools and their pupil cohort. In this financial year, 2021-22, the funding is increasing by 3.5%, or £1.27 billion. The NFF continues to target funding to schools that have the greatest numbers of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, providing £6.4 billion in funding for pupils with additional needs in this financial year, or 17% of the formula’s total funding. On top of that, we are providing the largest cash boost to schools in a decade, with core school funding increasing by £2.6 billion in the last financial year, by £4.8 billion this year, and by £7.1 billion in the year ahead. That also includes significant additional funding for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

Members who have spoken in the debate might be interested in the impact on their own constituencies. The national funding formula allocation this year has increased in Hornsey and Wood Green by 2.3%, or £2.7 million; in Barnsley East by 4.5%, or £2.8 million; in Leicester East by £3.5 million, or 3.4%; in Mitcham and Morden by £0.8 million, or 1.3%; in Lewisham East by £2.1 million, or 2.7%; and in Hampstead and Kilburn by £1.2 million, or 1.9%.

Beyond the classroom, we also fund free home-to-school transport for children eligible for free school meals. Because we know that families also welcome support during the school holidays, I am delighted that our holiday activities and food programme has been expanded across England for 2021. I completely refute the allegation by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who speaks for the Labour party, that the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do something for children in the holidays. We started these programmes three years ago. We have been piloting them, perfecting them, working out what parents and children want. It was a manifesto commitment of this party that we would increase holiday wraparound care, and that is why we have introduced them. The programme launched in Easter and will run across England during the summer and Christmas holidays year. It provides engaging and enriching activities for children across the country.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Was Marcus Rashford making it up, then? Did he have nothing to do? Was it just something in his own paranoid state of mind?

[Vicky Ford]

The holiday activities and food programme, which we announced, during the spending review—this is a really important point—had been piloted by this Government for three years. We had a manifesto commitment to launch it, and we have launched it and delivered it. It is being funded by this Government and has been delivered in every single local authority in England.

We are working hand in hand with Conservative councils, with Labour councils, with Liberal Democrat councils, with councils with no overall control, with independent councils, even with a Green council. We should not play party political games with holiday activities and food, which are vital not only to our children’s food but also to their educational attainment, because we know that when children are engaged in enriching activities during the summer holidays, they come back more ready to learn in September and it helps to close that attainment gap. I ask hon. Members to get behind these clubs, work with their local areas, go and volunteer, take part and enjoy the children having fun.

During the pandemic, the Government have taken exceptional steps to support children to learn when they are in the classroom, but also when they had to stay at home. More than 1.3 million laptops were delivered. It was a massive procurement project, at times one of the largest in the world, and that was on top of an estimated 2.9 million laptops and devices already owned by schools before the start of the pandemic. We have provided extra funding for local transport authorities to procure dedicated additional transport capacity to enable children to travel to school and, in addition to the usual funding that schools receive for free school meals, during the period when school attendance was restricted, we funded almost £0.5 billion of food vouchers, so that children continued to be able to access free lunchtime meals while learning from home.

Right now, our focus is on building back better. We announced the £1 billion covid catch-up package last year, which has already enabled schools to directly tackle the impact of lost learning. Some £650 million was distributed directly to schools. In addition, the £350 million national tutoring programme specifically targets the most disadvantaged young people and enables them to access high-quality small group or one-on-one tuition, which we know helps accelerate academic progress and will help them to tackle the gap between them and their peers.

One example is the Nuffield early language initiative, which supports children in reception year, to which 40% of schools have signed up. The majority of those are schools with above average rates of free school-meal eligibility. Nearly a quarter of a million children are being screened under the programme, and 60,000 children are getting that one-on-one or small group help. It makes a massive difference to those children at the start of their education journey and it is just one part of this amazing national tutoring programme.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green asked about support for other bills. As well as the furlough scheme and more than £7 billion in covid-related welfare measures, the Government have provided an additional £260 million of local welfare funding to local authorities in England. The key focus is to support disadvantaged children and their families, including children who have not yet started school, with food and other essentials, such as the utility bills that the hon. Lady mentioned, during both term time and school holidays. It covers food and fuel, and it keeps children and their families warm and well.

In terms of childcare bills, over the past decade we have made unprecedented investment in childcare. We introduced 30 hours of free childcare for many three and four-year-olds from working families, which can save parents up to £5,000 a year. The 15 hours of free childcare for two-year-olds from lower-income families is also a significant help. We know that when a two-year-old attends an early years setting it helps them to develop social skills and communication skills that can set them up for life.

[Catherine West]

Can the Minister tell us whether the UK has the most expensive or the second most expensive childcare in Europe?

[Vicky Ford]

We have also introduced many other different measures to help with childcare, for example the tax-free childcare that people can use. We want to ensure that our childcare is of very high quality, which is really important to parents, but the cost of childcare and of other bills continues to be an issue that we will keep looking at. That is why colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions are doing additional work on the support we can give to reduce the cost of living for families from different backgrounds. The In-Work Progression Commission, which is led by Baroness Ruby McGregor-Smith, is looking at this exact issue, to better understand the barriers faced by people in low pay and to look at what more we can do to support those individuals and businesses. That report is expected to be published shortly.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green mentioned support for families who get into debt. I am pleased that after many years of planning this month we have seen the launch of the breathing space scheme, which will help many hundreds of thousands of people who are struggling with their finances to obtain bespoke, tailored support to help them get back on track.

We know that the best way for families to get out of poverty is through work. After taking into account housing costs, a child living in a household where every adult is working is about four times less likely to be in absolute poverty than a child in household where nobody works. That is why, through colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions, we are doubling the number of work coaches to help people find a job. Our £2 billion kickstart scheme offers work placements for 16 to 24-year-olds. The skills Bill not only unlocks new opportunities for young people but, through the lifelong learning grant, it will also open up the chance to access new skills and opportunities to people of all ages. All of that will help families and children.

To conclude, this Government have extended the free school-meals offer to more groups of children than any other for half a century and we provide breakfast clubs in many disadvantaged areas. Our amazing holiday activities and food scheme, which we have spent many years working on, is now going to be available across the country. We also support these children to level up through educational opportunities, the pupil premium, which will increase, and the national funding formula.

We have provided unprecedented support in early years. During the pandemic, we supported families with vouchers, we gave out 1 million laptops and we invested in transport and educational recovery. We have put billions of pounds of extra funding into welfare payments, and taken real action to help parents into jobs and to upskill, so that they can get even better-paid jobs. Over the past decade, a Conservative-led Government introduced that national living wage and has doubled the personal tax allowance. That, and changes to the national insurance calculations, means that people working full time on lower incomes are now up to £5,400 a year better off than they were under Labour.

The pandemic has presented challenging circumstances for many families, and the Government have acted swiftly to ensure that children and families continue to be able to achieve the very best in life. I think about vulnerable children every single day, and every single day people across Government are working on how best to support them now, tomorrow and in the future. We will continue to take action where it is needed, focusing always on the most vulnerable first, as that is the right thing to do.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

We are expecting a vote any second, but Jim Shannon is the only Member in the debate without a proxy, and he has gone. Let us see how we go. I call Catherine West.

15:41

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Thank you, Dr Huq, and I am sure I can keep my remarks to under five minutes.

Recommendation 1 of the Government’s food strategy was to

“make sure a generation of our most disadvantaged children do not get left behind”.

Eating well in childhood is the foundation stone of equality of opportunity, and it is essential for both physical and mental growth. A poorly nourished child will struggle to concentrate at school, and the debate has fleshed out that concept a lot. Unfortunately, the Minister’s winding-up speech did not give me much hope. I welcome the increases to many of the constituencies that she mentioned, but an increase in pupil premium, or an increase in funding for disadvantaged children, means that child poverty is increasing. That suggests the Prime Minister was wrong when he made his statement today, which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) mentioned earlier.

A number of actions desperately need to be taken. No.1 is to pay as many people as possible not the minimum wage, but the real living wage, which is £9.50 in most of the UK and £10.85 in London. By the way, when I was a borough leader, we introduced the London living wage to all staff who worked in kitchens in schools at the same time as we introduced universal free school meals for every single primary school child. It was a great day when we did that.

No. 2 is that the £20 universal credit uplift must be made permanent, and we must urgently review the two- child limit. Let us not forget that over 50% of people using Trussell Trust food banks had never used one with children before, and that 1 million eight to 17-year-olds visited a food bank in December and January. We desperately need to review child benefit levels, which have been frozen, and we need to look at more help for families with fuel bills, water bills and council tax. I welcome the breathing space initiative that the Minister mentioned, but I do not think it is well known. I do not think there has been enough getting the message out, because far too many people are still in debt for certain financial products that are “buy now, pay later”, which very quickly become unaffordable.

People desperately need more help with housing costs, and we must look urgently at the privately rented sector, which tends to be very low quality. These days, it has lower-quality housing stock than in social housing, and people pay over a third of their income on expensive rent payments and childcare costs. [Interruption.] I think we have to end there, Dr Huq.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

You can carry on.

[Catherine West]

I accept that not all of those elements are in the Minister’s brief, but she did very well to cover some of them. I think all Members in the debate would like to put on record the wonderful work that is done in schools by the women who cook the meals, our school meals supervisors, all our teaching assistants and all our teachers. They play an important role in promoting good nutrition and sitting down to have a hot meal in the middle of the day. That has important elements, such as learning to use a knife and fork and learning to have conversations with adults—all the things that sitting around a table does.

I hope the Minister will take this to heart as we go forward and as she looks at the implications of the national food strategy for schools, so that we can hopefully go towards a high-quality approach to breakfast clubs and school meals. We need to get as much free fruit into schools as possible—that was another cut during the austerity years that needs to come back. We should also look at any provision that we can offer in secondary schools, because children do not stop being poor when they turn 13 and go to secondary school. They still need all that nutritional support and help.

We have had a good debate, and I thank all Members for being involved. I hope that the Minister will take some of the recommendations from the debate into Government policy, so that we can aspire to have a society where the 23 billionaires who were added to the rich list do not get to eat all the food, but where our poorer children get to have a nutritional and fully based diet as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered support for children entitled to free school meals.

00:04

Sitting suspended.

Injectable Vitamin B12

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Westminster Hall

16:05

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Well, only one Member is here physically, so I do not think that I need to read all of this out. If everyone present here in the Boothroyd Room could clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room, that would be great. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall—apart from by me in the Chair, as I may need to speak at any second.

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered proposals to remove classification of prescription-only medicine from injectable B12 vitamin.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. First, I thank my constituent Tracey Witty who, since being diagnosed with B12 deficiency in 2012, has worked tirelessly to support others to secure the treatment that they have desperately needed and campaigned for, and to increase public awareness of vitamin B12 deficiency as well as the issues surrounding access to treatment. It is clear that she is making a real difference to the lives of people across the country; and much of the information that I will share today has come from her extensive investigation and research into this disorder.

Vitamin B12 deficiency is a progressive neurological disorder with a wide range of symptoms that affect all body systems and, importantly, people of all ages. Statistics from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence show that, in the UK, 6% of people below 60 years of age are deficient in B12, and the figure rises to 20% in people aged over 60 years. That means that hundreds of thousands of people are struggling with the symptoms of B12 deficiency, which can have a devastating impact on both physical and mental health, leaving sufferers unable to contribute to either family life or society.

Crucially, and in part because of the wide range of symptoms associated with the disorder, sufferers often struggle to receive the correct diagnosis. They are commonly misdiagnosed with conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, bipolar disorder, multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, autism, ADHD—attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—and fibromyalgia. That means that they do not receive proper treatment and, in the long term, that can lead to significant complications, including permanent neurological damage.

Over the years, many people have contacted my constituent, Tracey, to discuss their experiences of living with B12 deficiency and the difficulties that they have faced in getting the right diagnosis. I would like to share a couple of their stories The first is of a mother, with three young children, whose serum B12 level first indicated a deficiency nearly a decade ago. Sadly, however, that was overlooked and, despite being unable to physically function because of her disorder, the woman was repeatedly denied access to B12 injectables by GPs. After spending a number of years being passed from pillar to post— seeing a psychologist, endocrinologist, haematologist and gastroenterologist, attending a pain clinic and chronic fatigue clinic, and being sent for a brain scan—the woman felt that she had no choice but to resort to sourcing injectable B12 online. Thankfully, she is now fully functioning, but can she be certain of having a trusted source of injections through the internet?

The second story is of a woman who, following four unsuccessful attempts at IVF decided to explore B12 deficiency as a possible cause of her fertility problems, as she also had a myriad of severe neurological symptoms and a known family history of B12 deficiency. More than a year ago, she found out that she was indeed deficient when her serum B12 test result was flagged as abnormal. However, along with the test result was a note stating that no action was to be taken and so, instead of being treated for a clear B12 deficiency, she was advised to take oral supplements and was referred to a chronic fatigue clinic. This woman is only just starting B12 injections with her GP this week, after repeatedly supplying evidence to them of the need for correct treatment. It is understood that oral vitamin B12 cannot be absorbed when the patient is B12 deficient; it requires an injection to be effective. Even when patients are correctly diagnosed, they often face an uphill battle to access the treatment they need when they need it. As the NHS website states:

“The treatment for vitamin B12 or folate deficiency anaemia depends on what's causing the condition. Most people can be easily treated with injections or tablets to replace the missing vitamins.”

It goes on to state that, “At first”, patients will

“have these injections every other day for 2 weeks or until…symptoms have started improving…After this initial period,”

if a patient’s B12 deficiency is not caused by a lack of the vitamin in their diet, they will

“usually need to have an injection of hydroxocobalamin every 2 to 3 months for the rest of”

their life.

Sadly, however, for many people that maintenance dose is not enough, leaving them to deal with debilitating symptoms while trying to juggle the stresses of everyday life. That was the case for another woman who has been in contact with Tracey in recent months. During lockdown, that woman who had previously been diagnosed with pernicious anaemia, which is one cause of vitamin B12 deficiency, was exhausted, constantly nauseated, stumbling, struggling with brain fog and unable to function properly. She therefore asked her GP whether she could have her B12 injections more regularly than the eight-weekly regime she was on.

Subsequently, however, that woman had her regime reduced to just four injections per year, after her GP took advice from a professor of haematology who it seems incorrectly stated: “A typical dose survives in the body for up to two years and once the patient has the first few injections, there is no ongoing deficiency. We can be confident that these fluctuating symptoms are not related in any way to B12.” That statement is at odds with NICE guidance, which is clear:

“Treatment of B12 deficiency in people with neurologic involvement should include”

injections

“on alternate days until there is no further improvement”.

A single mother who was trying to cope with the additional stresses of home schooling two autistic children due to covid-19 restrictions was left with no other choice but to purchase B12 online from a pharmacy abroad in order to function properly.

It is because of such cases that I presented a petition in the Chamber calling for the classification of prescription- only medicine to be removed from injectable B12, so that those who have been diagnosed with B12 deficiency may access treatment over the counter at pharmacies when they need it. As the petition mentioned, that would bring the UK’s

“approach in line with that of other countries, affording those with B12 deficiency the same dignity and control over their own health as a diabetic using insulin, and reducing the workload and financial burden on GP practices, District Nurses and other NHS services”.—[Official Report, 23 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 1077.]

The latter point has become increasingly important given that covid-19 has placed significant pressure on NHS services and, in recent months, intensified demand for GP services.

It is also worth noting that, since I presented the petition, Tracey’s Change.org petition on that very subject has garnered more than 96,300 signatures, reflecting the public interest in the matter. I am grateful for the Government’s response to the petition that I presented. However, it raised a number of new issues, which I will put to the Minister now.

The Government’s response stated:

“Clinically urgent treatment must always be provided, with the patient's clinical needs being paramount. Any patient who wishes to discuss their need for vitamin B12 injections can request a review with their GP or other responsible clinician.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 6P.]

In Tracey’s experience, however, and as evidenced by the stories I shared earlier, clinically urgent treatment is frequently denied to those with B12 deficiency. That situation has been worsened by the covid-19 restrictions, when many people with the disorder and pernicious anaemia were told by their GP that they no longer needed B12 injections and could instead take a B12 tablets. Tracey heard how some of the GP practices came to that conclusion after taking blood to check B12 levels. That is despite NICE guidance and The BMJ stating that no testing should be carried out once a patient is on vitamin B12 injections, as there is no indication of what is happening at a cellular level.

The Government’s response also stated:

“Vitamin B12 could not legally be classified as a medicine that can be made available for sale without prescription in pharmacies because it is an injection and because the condition it is licensed to treat, pernicious anaemia, needs a clinician to diagnose it, and monitor its treatment.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 5P.]

It is important to make a distinction here because, as I mentioned, pernicious anaemia is only one cause of vitamin B12 deficiency. B12 injectables are also required by those who are B12 deficient for other reasons. Tracey feels that there is a widespread lack of understanding of this subject among clinicians, which is compounded by the inaccuracy of B12 testing.

As the NHS website acknowledges,

“the current widely used blood test only measures the total amount of vitamin B12”

in a patient’s body, rather than what form the B12 takes. This means that a blood test may show that a patient has normal B12 levels, even though their body cannot use much of it, leaving many patients without access to help or treatment. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether the Government will be working with the NHS to further clinicians’ understanding of B12 deficiency, in particular the limitations of testing, to ensure that those who are deficient receive better care.

Finally, I will pick up on the wider point in the Government’s response about the classification of B12 injectables. The response stated:

“Before a medicine can be switched from a prescription only medicine (POM) to a pharmacy (P) medicine, Ministers must be satisfied that it would be safe to allow it to be supplied without a prescription. This means that it is a medicine which no longer meets any of the criteria for a POM.”

The response went on to imply that, as B12 injectables are normally prescribed by a doctor for parenteral administration, they cannot be considered safe to be supplied without a prescription.

That position seems to be at odds with the fact that private clinics are able to provide the very same injectables to clients, provided they advertise them using such terms as wellness, boost or supplement, and do not market them as treatments for B12 deficiency or make any medical claims. That is because the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency does not consider vitamin B12 injectables to be medicines in this instance. Indeed, in a statement to Tracey, the MHRA said:

“Our current advice to private clinics administering vitamin B12 injections which are not licensed medicinal products intravenously for non-medicinal purposes is that we do not regard these to be medicines and that they fall outside of the remit of the MHRA. It must be absolutely clear in the advertising of such products that they do not have a medical purpose.”

Furthermore, staff at private clinics do not need any medical training to administer B12 injectables to clients. The implication of this is that B12 injectables are simultaneously licensed medicinal products, which are not safe to be administered by someone without medical training, and non-medicinal products, which are safe to be administered by someone without medical training. Moreover, unlike with insulin, the risk of toxicity or overdose with injectable B12 is considered to be extremely low, and so would be relatively safe for those with a deficiency to self-administer. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those points.

That being said, as the Government’s response to the petition rightly highlighted, self-administration would not be suitable for everyone, so it would be only right that patients retain the ability to receive their injection at a GP practice. Tracey has also expressed that pharmacists who are already trained to administer vaccinations should be allowed to administer injections to those with a prescription. That would allow pharmacists to play a greater role in community healthcare, relieving pressures on GP services.

Here is another email I received directly from a constituent: “I suffer from B12 deficiency. At present I require an injection every other day to keep serious neurological decline at bay. I was diagnosed last summer and rapidly declined, to the point of almost being in a wheelchair. I was helped by the GP initially, but would not expect them to continue my intensive treatment owing to resources. However, if they could train us and supply the details, it would be better than as now, when many of us are forced to research this ourselves.

“I currently have to purchase ampules of hydroxocobalamin online from Germany, which I am sure you will agree is an expensive, lengthy and unnecessary process when they could easily be bought over the counter in the UK. The injections have enabled me to regain my peripheral vision, resume driving, function normally in a busy household and even get a new part- time job. I cannot overstate the impact they have had on me, especially since the doctor suggested I might have terminal neurological decline. Please, please state the case for hundreds or possibly thousands of us in the same position, and for those who have not yet been diagnosed and are struggling with poor mental and physical health for the sake of a low-cost vitamin.”

I hope that the overriding message the Minister takes away with her is the desperate situation in which those whose stories I have shared have found themselves—so much so that they have had to source their own injections just to be able to function as she and I can. The debate has been advertised on the “B12 Deficincy.info” Facebook page and, this morning, one lady left the following comment:

“Fingers are crossed. This would be life changing for me and so many others, no more battling with my doctors. I can only dream of what it’s like to feel alive.”

I ask the Government please to reconsider their position urgently.

16:20

[The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, for what I think is the first time. I remember chairing a debate when you were an MP speaking, so the tables have turned. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward the debate. She raised many points in her speech, and we have only 15 minutes, so to do them justice in detail I will ask my officials, who are listening in, to provide a detailed answer to each of her questions.

I will speak about something that I have not prepared for, but I will use this time because it is so important and because my hon. Friend said something in her speech that made me think about something else. First, I thank your constituent Tracey Witty, and your constituents and other women who suffer from B12 deficiency. Every time you spoke about an individual case, you mentioned a woman; you did not once mention a man. I furiously fired off a few questions while you were speaking, and it is true that more women suffer from pernicious anaemia and vitamin B12 deficiency than men. That leads me to the women’s health strategy.

On 18 March, we launched a call for evidence for women to tell us about the problems they have in accessing healthcare services. I hope Tracey is listening, but if not, I hope you will get this back to her. Tracey will have a network of contacts of women suffering with this issue and, for it to be addressed, we need to hear those women’s stories. There is a simple link to the women’s health strategy on gov.uk, and it will take three to four minutes to complete a response on a phone or iPad.

It is so much less difficult—rather than easier—to change policy if you have the evidence. The default in health is male and I am afraid that it is very difficult to get change for many conditions that affect women. To cite an example, the response by Dame Sally Davies is from, I think, three or possibly four years ago and there has still been no major change. NICE will come forward with recommendations, but that may not be for another 12 or 18 months. It is not fast enough. My point is that that is because it is women, and women’s voices are just not listened to. I am trying to change that. I am trying to put women at the heart of health strategy and health policy.

I am sorry to use a few minutes of my response to get this point over but, as well as you raising this issue here, which is vital, Tracey could have a massive impact if she and the women she knows use the forums and platforms she is aware of to post the link to ensure that women are aware and can respond to the women’s strategy call for evidence. It is vital that my hon. Friend is here raising this on behalf of Tracey, but if we could have hundreds or possibly thousands of women responding, that would be incredibly powerful, because that would give us evidence—data. It would be not one constituent of yours putting a story forward; it would be lots of them.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. Minister, you will remember the thing about saying “you”—you used to say it—and you have done it a few times. Dame Eleanor Laing, who is our boss nowadays, is quite hard on it and said, “Don’t let anyone get away with it.” I let you do it a few times, but if you can use “my hon. Friend”, that is better.

[Ms Dorries]

When I was in Chair, I told people off all the time for exactly the same reason. I am absolutely sure that because we had a big gap with no debates over covid, I have slipped back into a habit I had prior to becoming an MP 20, 16 or 15 years ago, or whenever it was. I apologise.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

You don’t look that old!

[Ms Dorries]

Well, I am, I can assure you.

To finish my point, if my hon. Friend could ensure that her constituent responds to the call for evidence, that would absolutely be more powerful and useful than anything I have to say in my response to her speech. We will respond to her points in detail.

I will address some points made by my hon. Friend. She asked specifically about making B12 injections available to purchase from pharmacies. As she said, the MHRA is the body responsible for medicines licensing in the United Kingdom, and it is committed to making more medicines available over the counter, so I think we would be pushing at an already open door. The MHRA is committed to doing that where it is safe to do so, as an important element of the self-care agenda to empower patients.

My hon. Friend mentioned the role of pharmacists. We have seen them step up during the covid pandemic and the vaccination programme. That was an incredibly important point. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), whose portfolio includes pharmacy, is constantly looking at ways to increase and enhance the role of pharmacists, and this could be a useful way of doing so.

I used to be a nurse and gave vitamin B12 injections years ago. I was trying to rack my brains, but do not remember ever having given one to a man, but I am sure that I did, because men suffer from such symptoms, too. It is a really interesting phenomenon and, with a bit of imagination, working with clinicians and harnessing the expertise and knowledge of pharmacists, we could find a new way of doing this.

The MHRA has an established process and procedure for moving medicines from prescription-only status to over the counter, which I will refer to as OTC, when it safe to do so. An OTC is a medicine that is not likely to present a direct or indirect danger to human health, even when used incorrectly, if used without the supervision of a doctor; or is not frequently and to a very wide extent used incorrectly, and as a result is not likely to present a direct or indirect danger to human health; or does not contain substances or preparations—there is an entire list, which we will include in the letter to my hon. Friend.

To date, the legal classification of all currently authorised medicines for injection, including vitamin B12, is prescription only. Other factors support that position, in addition to the fact that the product is injectable. The main reason why it would not be a suitable candidate for reclassification under existing guidelines is that the product is considered to meet the prescription-only medicines requirements, as set out in legislation.

Pernicious anaemia, or any other cause of vitamin B12 deficiency, cannot be self-diagnosed and requires the expertise of a medical doctor. Contrary to my hon. Friend’s remarks NICE guidance also states that when a patient presents with the signs and symptoms of pernicious anaemia, they should undergo a full blood count as part of the diagnostic process.

We are also aware that there is a high risk of off-label use by patients. She mentioned that private clinics are injecting for wellness. That is currently authorised for use only in maintenance therapy for pernicious anaemia every two to three months, depending on the type of pernicious anaemia. Anecdotally, we hear that patients consider that a more frequent administration of the medicine would be appropriate to their particular clinical symptoms. Any reclassification of the medicine would not change either the dose or the frequency of the treatment set out in the terms of the product’s marketing authorisation.

I am also led to believe that the evidence of lifestyle abuse of unlicensed formulations of B12, which, although not necessarily relevant to the patient group including Tracey and others whom my hon. Friend mentioned, is also taken into account in determining the legal classification of the medicine. That is an issue that has to be considered: there are people who would abuse those formulations.

Just because there is a particular group that would over-use and abuse the availability, we should say that we are not going to look at this. Although that is not in my speech, and it has not been advised to me, I am making that point. We should not use that as a reason to say, “We don’t go there”. This affects more women than men—I do not apologise for banging on about that point—and therefore we should be pushing those barriers back as part of the women’s health strategy and looking at different ways to deal with it.

Taken together, these issues mean that the criteria for prescription-only medicine have been reached, and changing the classification would therefore not be appropriate—but that part of the information that I have been given needs to be challenged. We need to ask, “Why not?” It is vital that we get the evidence back from the network to the forums that Tracey knows. I note that this issue has been before Health Ministers in recent times, and as I mentioned, Dame Sally Davies, our previous chief medical officer, did engage with the medical royal colleges to raise awareness of the condition. However, it has taken too long—I think Dame Sally retired three years ago.

Following on from that interaction, NICE has worked to develop and publish an updated clinical knowledge summary on pernicious anaemia, which sets out clinical guidance on diagnosis, treatment and management of the condition that should be followed by general practice physicians and others responsible for the care of patients who suffer from this condition. The updated guidance was published in July 2020, and it should now be a regular part of clinical interventions in general practice and secondary care.

I would be interested to know what Tracey’s experience of that is, and whether she believes that the guidance has been implemented, particularly based on the experience of other women that she has been speaking to on these forums. Has it been implemented? Are GPs aware of it? If those women could let us know those answers in their responses to the women’s health strategy, that would be incredibly important. It is also important to evaluate the impact that this guidance has had on the clinical management of pernicious anaemia before considering further regulatory options. NICE usually produces guidelines as quickly as possible—it is an amazing organisation that does very good work—but we need to move a little bit faster on this and other women-related issues.

As for my hon. Friend’s question about private injections of B12, as I said, there are two separate types. Licensed products must be administered by prescription and by a suitably qualified healthcare professional, so that is where we are at the moment. It is important to note that private clinics are not providing the same injectables to clients as GPs are; they are providing injectable vitamin B12 products that are not licensed medicines for general health and wellness purposes. Of course, if clinics make medicinal claims for unlicensed vitamin B12 products that they offer, the MHRA would take action. Also, when classifying products, the MHRA are bound by case law to consider products on a case-by-case basis and cannot automatically classify all vitamin B products as medicine, so they do not all meet the criteria to be classified as licensed medicines. That is another important point.

In closing, I thank my hon. Friend for continuing to raise this important issue on behalf of her constituents and everyone affected by the condition. We will continue to work with and support the NHS and NICE—which are actively engaged with this issue— and clinicians to understand the importance of B12 deficiency and guarantee that patients are receiving the best possible care. I think the women’s health strategy will really help with that and will possibly be the boost we need to move this forward through the evidence we can gather.

I will finish on that point, because Tracey and the others who use the same platforms, my hon. Friend, and others who complete the women’s health strategy could give us important evidence that we need to enable us to push forward. I am not saying that means we do not know what policies we are going to develop from the women’s health strategy, but if enough women respond and say that this is an issue, that gives them a voice and it gives us a lever to pull. However, one of the biggest issues here is the time it has taken to bring about change. The guidelines have gone in; I would be interested to know how they have bedded in, and whether people such as those on Tracey’s forums think they are being used and have led to any benefit. We would also be interested to hear what the problems are with prescribing, and the issues that they have with administration.

Question put and agreed to.

16:34

Sitting suspended.

Driverless Cars

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Westminster Hall

16:50

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind all Members that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall. I think we do have one person missing, the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger). I think that, theoretically, he is not allowed to participate; anyway, we will see what happens if he shows up.

The next item on my list does not apply because no one is participating in this debate virtually. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before leaving the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has deemed that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall until you are speaking. If you can email your speeches to [e-mail], that is very helpful for our colleagues in Hansard. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list—this may not apply—should use the seats in the Public Gallery initially and move forward as seats become available. Members should sit only where there are microphones—I think everyone is doing that.

16:51

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of driverless cars.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and to have had the privilege of introducing this important debate on the future of driverless cars. In Milton Keynes, we are familiar with the sight of robots roaming our city as they bring food deliveries to almost 200,000 residents, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the e-scooter trials. We are a tech-focused city; we are at the heart of the technical evolution of our country; we are a centre of innovation. We have the UK’s largest self-driving car project, Autodrive, and local manufacturers—Ford, Jaguar Land Rover and Tata—are supporting that. Last year, we also had the HumanDrive project, culminating in the longest autonomous journey in Britain—230 miles, from Milton Keynes to Sunderland.

Now, at Stadium MK, we will be hosting a Government-funded trial to potentially introduce driverless taxis and a self-driving bus. I know that it might come as a surprise to many people watching this debate that we could have self-driving cars on our roads later this year, but this is just part of the exciting work that is under way, and has been for years and years, to develop connected and autonomous road vehicles, or CAV, as I will call them for the rest of this speech. That is in addition to automated lane-keeping systems to keep the cars literally on the straight and narrow.

To date, £400 million has been jointly invested with industry for those technologies developed by UK companies, companies right here in Britain, and more than 80 groundbreaking, Government-funded projects have taken place, including the ones in Milton Keynes that I have mentioned. We get a bit of stick for using the phrase “world leading”, but I will not apologise for it in this instance, because I know that my colleagues at the Department for Transport have established the world-leading, £200-million CAM Testbed UK ecosystem, to test the technology safely and to test the regulatory environment. The landmark consultations in these areas have been published; that work has been led by the Law Commission. In addition, the foundations of the world’s first comprehensive safety and security assurance process are being laid.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

Being a keen follower of my hon. Friend, I have seen many of his tweets and followed many of his speeches—we all know too well the fears of judgment day. Seeing the robots on the streets of Milton Keynes actually being fed by children, how do we know that the robots will not bite back and will actually be safe for everyone involved?

[Ben Everitt]

I am very grateful to my good and hon. Friend for that intervention. Fears of the robot apocalypse may be a little overblown when it comes to issues of artificial intelligence, driverless cars, automated connected communications and mobility solutions, but there is always the problem that technology goes wrong. We recently saw a case in the United States where a driverless car in driverless mode effectively went rogue. That is why it is so important to test properly, to put a safety regime around the technology and to regulate, and why we have been consulting and working with the industry for years and years.

Safety and security are incredibly important. Over the last seven years, industry leaders, experts and manufacturers have learned an incredible amount about the benefits of self-driving cars and the part they can play in delivering our priorities to boost the economy, to reduce congestion, accidents and carbon emissions, and—the buzz words— to build back better. They will play an important part in our future as a country.

CAV technology has the potential to remove the cause of over 85% of road traffic accidents that are down to driver error. Let us break that down—that is 47,000 serious accidents that happen when we nip to the shops, we go to work or we go out on the school run. If we break that down further, that has the potential to save 3,900 lives over the next decade. I know colleagues here can sympathise with feeling tired, stressed out and distracted at the wheel, especially when there are kids in the back singing and arguing.

[Christian Wakeford]

My hon. Friend is being very kind in giving way, but I will correct him because in AXA’s figures 90% of road traffic accidents were caused by driver error. When we also factor in figures regarding drug and alcohol impairment, as well as the impact on pedestrians, this could be a huge innovation and be world leading in terms of not only keeping our roads safe but keeping Britain safe.

[Ben Everitt]

I am grateful to be corrected on that. I am pleased that the figure has gone up rather than down. My hon. Friend’s point is well made: robots do not get distracted or have a bad day and get grumpy.

As well as reducing accidents, the technology can reduce congestion and create cleaner and more efficient roads across Britain. These vehicles will be able to communicate with traffic lights, to keep traffic flowing. They will reduce the number of idle cars and significantly improve air quality in our towns and cities. As the technology develops and more CAVs are on our roads, we could reduce the average delay by 40%. So, fewer accidents and fewer delays—what’s not to like?

A report, which I am sure we all saw as it was emailed to us this morning by campaign groups, by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders showed that 50% of those polled who had personal mobility issues feel that their mobility is restricted and 48% said that CAVs could reduce the stress of driving. They can help people with disabilities become more mobile; vitally improve access to employment and healthcare; give 1 million people in the UK better access to higher education; and, potentially, unlock £8 billion of value to our economy. Creating swifter and safer journeys could boost productivity in some regions by up to 14%.

In addition, given the work now happening in Milton Keynes, I have seen first hand how this can generate skilled jobs, technical and professional positions. That is, of course, not just in Milton Keynes. Connected and autonomous technology could create around 320,000 new jobs in the UK by 2030, worth £42 billion by 2035. I am interested to hear more from the Minister about the Government’s plans to build on our proud history of British car manufacturing and how that is going to propel us forward.

I have focused on roads, but this technology has the power not just to revolutionise roads but can be used in sectors from agriculture to nuclear power facilities. The technology can support and transform different labour sectors as the UK captures the global CAV, research and development, and manufacturing markets.

Back in 2015, KPMG estimated that the potential overall economic benefit for Britain could be £51 billion per annum by 2030—a huge prize is there for the taking. However, as we plan the next generation of automated vehicles and deploy them on our roads, we must put safety first. The idea of self-driving vehicles is something that we are more used to seeing in sci-fi and futuristic films than on the M1 in 2021. I am sure I am not the only one present who thinks it seems contradictory that taking one’s hands off the wheel and one’s eyes off the lane could actually make our roads safer.

Later this year, we will not be seeing KITT from “Knight Rider” or Lightning McQueen swooping through our streets, but the first tentative steps will ensure that automated lane-keeping systems are used only in the single slow lane of the motorway. It will be limited to 37 mph. A vehicle must receive a quality approval and have no evidence to challenge its ability to safely self-drive. Realistically, an early form of self-driving technology is unlikely to be commercially available for our constituents before 2025, and I know my colleagues will be monitoring it at every stage.

Although I look forward to seeing the Government’s response to the recently closed consultation that proposes amendments to the highway code in order to ensure that we can work with the automated lane-keeping systems and hopefully give everybody the opportunity to have their say, we are also aware that there are a number of issues with connected and autonomous vehicles. From public perception to cyber-security and the legal and regulatory framework, which is fiendishly complicated, it all needs a serious assessment by the Department. Although it is absolutely key that we secure the UK’s place as a global science superpower, as the Minister has said, we must put road safety first.

I am extremely grateful to see that so many Members are present. Connected and autonomous technology has the potential to bring so many benefits to our constituents by boosting British businesses and transforming our journeys. As we embark on this futuristic venture, it is definitely something that has to be slow and steady to start with. We need to put safety first, but I look forward to hearing more from the Minister on what is under way to build the best regulatory framework to deliver this opportunity for the future.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the three Front-Bench spokespeople, starting with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), at no later than 5.25 pm, so I hope there will not be any need for a time limit. I call Nick Fletcher.

17:02

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Dr Huq, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) for an excellent speech and for securing the debate.

When I was a young man—many, many years ago—Saturday afternoon and early-evening TV was “The Dukes of Hazzard”, “The A-Team” and “Knight Rider”. “Knight Rider” was definitely my favourite. It was a great show, and I thoroughly enjoyed tuning in, as I am sure many other Members present did, too. The star of the show was not David Hasselhoff—the Hoff—who played Michael Knight, or even Patricia McPherson, the glamourous mechanic who never got her hands dirty. No, the star was KITT, a talking driverless car. With its flashing red lights and numerous toys, it really was the star of the show, so Members can imagine my excitement 40 years later when I took delivery of my very own KITT, my new Tesla Model 3, back in 2019—what a wonderful year 2019 was. It is a wondrous machine with many tricks, and although it cannot hold a conversation with me, it can drive itself. The summon feature enables me to park my car with my phone, which is a great party trick when seeing friends.

For those who do not know much about this topic, autopilot on a Tesla pretty much drives the car by itself, but people have to keep their hands on the steering wheel. I have used this many times, and it is a great feature. If I remove my hands from the steering wheel, it informs me to put them back on. However, it has its limitations. Tight country roads are not always a successful experience, and the driver obviously needs to be in control at junctions, roundabouts, traffic lights and so on, but the technology is definitely getting there.

Today, however, we are talking about automated lane-keeping systems and the Government’s plan to allow that to happen. I am afraid I believe that it is a little early. I am sure that many Members have seen the dangers of allowing ALKS to operate without driver assistance when swerving for debris or other immediate obstacles on the road. It just is not safe to do so with the technology that we currently use.

The software is available, although—at least to my knowledge—the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has not allowed it to be used. That means that it cannot be downloaded in European countries. My recommendation is to change the regulations that stop that happening. Let us use the software for a safe period of time, with the driver still fully in charge of the vehicle. It is important to highlight that that is precisely how planes operate. A computer flies the plane, but the pilot is always responsible and can take control at any moment.

To clarify, we need to put the regulations in place that allow the available software to be downloaded to our vehicles, and then use the system with the driver still fully engaged and responsible. The software learns from every mile driven, and if we have to intervene, the disengagement is noted by the system, meaning that the fleet learns—that is, all the cars that are on the road using the system. The number of disengagements will be recorded. The data can be reported back to the Government so that they can make an informed decision on how little or how much driver engagement should be legally required.

By adopting that policy, the UK can remain at the cutting edge of the technology, making the whole experience much safer. I believe that Tesla is doing that now in the USA, capturing billions of miles of data each month, thus continually improving the driving experience. The industry as a whole thinks that driverless cars, once perfected, will be much safer, create less congestion and generally be a better experience for drivers. I tend to agree with that assessment. I also believe that in the not-too-distant future we will debate whether we allow humans to drive cars and not just computers.

On that note, think of every driving job that may well disappear, which is food for thought. I do not think that we can stop the technology, nor do I want to; yet we must be ready for the implications that it will bring. Let me finish by saying that I love “Knight Rider” and the star KITT, so much so that I call my Tesla “KITT”, but as much I love the thought of the technology its implementation into everyday life needs to be done cautiously and using all the available technology, not just some of it.

17:07

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to contribute to the debate under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) for introducing the debate, as I am a keen proponent of advancing new technologies where they are available to us.

We live in an age where there appears to be no bounds to the possibilities offered by technology to virtually every aspect of our lives. That is certainly true of transportation. The ability to take off, fly and land aircraft with several hundred passengers aboard is one example that has been available to us for decades. For that reason, it is at least to some extent surprising that we are only now starting to make meaningful advances in the technology around driverless cars. That probably has something to do with manufacturers understanding their markets better than most and realising that public perception is a significant obstacle to overcome, so the question for me becomes more one of how we address the gap in public acceptance rather than whether there are technological solutions.

Identifying the issues —I was going to say the drivers—behind that gap is key, and understanding how we can bring certainty to ameliorate the fears arising from them is even more important. The UK often leads the way in innovation, but can often fall at the implementation phase, leaving the door open for other countries to, effectively, copy and implement. We have seen that happen many times over the past century. Let us hope that this is not one such case and that we can actually benefit from the technologies that we have in our hands and that we are developing in our country.

17:10

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.

While we are talking about the names of our cars, let me say that I have not named mine KITT; being a fan of “Star Wars”, I have named it the Falcon. Members have talked about the programmes they watched growing up, and I do not have as many years as my colleagues, but we all remember our first experiences of seeing driverless vehicles, whether it was KITT in “Knight Rider” or the Johnnycabs in “Total Recall”, or in the future scenes in “Demolition Man”. These are not the greatest films in the world—that would have to be “The Empire Strikes Back”—but all are examples of driverless vehicles on our screens, going back decades.

This is, however, not just about bringing the world of science fiction into the modern day through our fantastic research and development and manufacturing. Driverless vehicles are a natural advancement in society, especially when they are linked to the advances that have been made in electric vehicles and battery capacity, making this a natural evolution from the internal combustion engine.

As I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), research shows that roughly 90% of road traffic accidents are caused by driver error, and that is before we factor in other human error, whether from pedestrians, drug or alcohol impairment, or even tiredness. Removing the driver from the equation can potentially lead to much safer roads for us all. Speaking as a Member who has lost family members and seen others severely impacted due to road traffic accidents, that is surely a big positive that means this technology is inevitable. Yes, there may well be problems when we are in a transition period, during which we have a mixture of driverless vehicles and vehicles still operated by drivers, but things will progress.

Linked to this is the problem of insurance: who is responsible in the event of an accident if there is no act of negligence? Is it the owner or the manufacturer? I appreciate that these conversations are all ongoing, but we need answers sooner rather than later, before we start having these vehicles on the road.

Vehicles becoming automated also potentially cuts down on the number of vehicles on the road. That should be applauded, because it leads to not only a cleaner, greener road network, but the ability to remove the scourge of congestion. As a Member with one of the most congested roads in the country in his constituency —Bury New Road in Prestwich—I think that this, too, needs exploring. Congestion drives people away from our town centres—excuse the pun—at a time when we need them back more than ever, so we need to be doing what we can to invest in not only our road network but our towns.

[Ben Everitt]

Is there anything specific in my hon. Friend’s constituency that he would seek to improve to make it fit for driverless cars and the transportation of the future?

[Christian Wakeford]

My hon. Friend has mentioned building back better. This entire innovation is about building back greener and fairer to allow more people to get back into employment. He mentioned mobility issues in his opening remark—being able to get people back into adult education, higher education and employment, and helping them to access health opportunities that they have been denied because of mobility—and we need to explore those issues around the table with as much enthusiasm as possible. When we factor in the time lost through accidents and in congestion—I refer to the road I mentioned earlier, and I think we all realise the number of hours it takes us to get out of London as we head back to our constituencies—this innovation will inevitably lead to quicker and more efficient journeys, which is one way to increase the productivity of Great Britain, while improving the ability of many to get back into employment.

This is arguably the best innovation we can make for the economy, because it is not about building back better but about building back stronger. In doing so, we are making sure that we are a mobile, safe and green nation.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I call the first Front-Bench spokesperson, and the last man in the debate, apart from Ben, who gets to answer at the end: Gavin Newlands, for the Scottish National party.

17:14

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

Thank you very much, Dr Huq; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair—and I am calling you by your proper name for a change as well. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) on securing this important debate and setting out so well not only the challenges that the connected and autonomous vehicle sector faces but, crucially, the huge economic and social opportunities that CAV adoption can bring.

Many Members have made excellent and pertinent points. I am not sure if he looks it, but the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) must be of a similar age to me, with his love of “Knight Rider”. He spoke of a future where we might be debating whether humans should be allowed to drive. Given some of the drivers on the road today, it could probably be argued that that debate should be brought forward. I should declare that I also own an electric car, which was bought recently, but unlike others mine does not have name, so I will need to speak to my children and sort that out forthwith.

The SNP obviously welcomes innovation and understands the potential benefits of driverless cars in terms of ushering in a new era of sustainable and advanced transportation that seeks to reduce traffic accidents and prevent harm. The journeys of the future could ease congestion, cut emissions and reduce human error, but we must ensure that, despite the dizzying pace of technological advancement, safety remains paramount and regulations are of the highest standard. As we have heard, automated driving systems could prevent 47,000 serious accidents and save nearly 4,000 lives over the next decade through their ability to reduce the single largest cause of road accidents—human error.

It has been referenced already, but I am grateful to the organisations that sent briefing material ahead of today’s debate: AXA UK, Cycling UK, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, representatives of the insurance industry, other road users and the car industry itself. That is a pretty good balance or perspectives, and it has to be said that all are positive about the potential for autonomous vehicles, with some caveats. I am also grateful that the SMMT provided a glossary of the various acronyms and abbreviations involved. The main one being discussed today is ALKS—automated lane keeping system—which AXA describes as a form of conditional automation, based on existing driver-assist technology, and can be described as level 3, using the SAE definition. That is a lot of acronyms.

There is concern that these systems may not be capable of undertaking all the functions of a competent, attentive driver—for example, swerving debris; the minimum risk manoeuvre, or MRM; stopping in the lane of travel; and —an issue I have a question for the Minister on—complying with UK road signage. In 2018, there were 70 accidents caused by cars driving in a closed lane on smart motorways in England. The SMMT said that ALKS was designed to read and respond to roads signs and speed limits, and to comply with traffic rules in the country of operation. However, AXA suggests that current ALKS, including radar sensors, could only monitor short distances and would likely be unable to recognise a red x signifying a closed lane. In summing up, can the Minster say what her understanding of the issue is, please?

Another challenge we must overcome if these things are to become a feature on British roads is resolving the issue of how automatic vehicles can be insured. Insurance companies are concerned that the goal of being a leader in autonomous vehicles could backfire unless automators and regulators spell out the current limitations of the technology available today. We would welcome action to ensure that vehicle insurance policies facilitate automated vehicles in the future, but we are concerned about the potential costs to policyholders and contention over liability between manufacturers and insurers.

I only have a short time, so I do not want to dwell on the challenges. As we have heard, this country is a world-leading location for the mass market potential of CAVs, with the Department for Transport estimating that the UK CAV market could be worth nearly £42 billion by 2035, creating 40,000 skilled jobs. But—you know me, Dr Huq; I hate to be negative—we have been here before. This country was a world leader in renewable technologies, and still is when it comes to the form of wave and tidal in Scotland, but the UK Government allowed that leadership to be lost on wind technology. We must learn the lessons and, on this issue, remain a tech maker rather than a tech taker.

We are on the cusp of a driving revolution, but the UK Government must get into gear and put their foot down for sustainable transportation. The technology could not only unlock vast opportunities for the UK economy and jobs market, but significantly improve the safety and efficiency of how we travel in the coming decade. The Scottish Government have already stepped up investment in AV, EV and sustainable future transport infrastructure. The CAV road map is aligned with Scotland’s future intelligent transport systems strategy and our draft national transport strategy, which sets out a compelling vision for the transport system over the next 20 years—one that protects our climate and improves lives.

The strategy highlights the potential for Scotland to become a market leader in the development and early adoption of transport innovations. The Scottish Government are committed to developing an integrated, sustainable, accessible and—importantly—environmentally friendly transport system. That was backed up again today by the First Minister in her statement of Government priorities, which include reducing car kilometres by 20% by the decade’s end; removing half of combustion engine buses from the fleet by the end of 2023; free bus travel for those 21 and under and 60 and over; spending 10% of transport capital on active travel; and encouraging drivers to swap to zero-emission cars through enhanced incentives, including interest-free loan schemes for both new and used electric cars. I should declare that, having just bought an electric car, I made use of one of those interest- free electric car loans from the Scottish Government.

Scotland is getting on with building the sustainable transport network of the future. In supporting and echoing much of what hon. Members have said in the debate, I urge the UK Government to get on and do the same. [Interruption.] That’s timing.

17:21

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

17:35

On resuming—

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) on securing this debate. He represents an area that I know pretty well, as my sister and her family live there, although they are in the old part—the railway town of Wolverton—but I have seen the robots whizzing around the streets. In fact, the first time I saw them, I thought they were speed cameras and got quite worried at the little things going along the pavement flashing at me as I was driving along the road. It is quite exciting.

It is right that the motion refers to the “potential merits” of driverless cars, and that note of hesitancy is probably about right at the moment. There is potential; driverless cars could mean safer, more efficient travel on the roads through better regulation of speed, less congestion and less risk of human error, which accounts for 90% of road traffic accidents. As has been said, the SMMT says that they could prevent 47,000 serious accidents over the next decade, and save 3,900 lives. It also said that they would open up new mobility opportunities for those with disabilities and the elderly, create 420,000 jobs and contribute £62 billion to the economy by 2030. That is all pretty exciting. I am probably not alone in finding it slightly hard to get my head around the idea of being in one of those cars and not being entirely in control, but I am very keen to test out the technology at some stage to see how it would work.

I want to be clear that Labour is generally supportive of the introduction of autonomous vehicles and of moving things ahead, but I echo what has been said by other hon. Members about ensuring safety. One of the key concerns is that there are different types of autonomous vehicles. As we have heard, the type that has been considered for introduction to UK roads in the immediate future—the automated lane keeping system vehicles—are not fully autonomous. The automation merely regulates the speed and direction of the vehicles, but still requires a driver to be attentive in order to perform emergency manoeuvres and lane switching.

I have spoken to various companies, including in the insurance world about this issue. We have to be clear what the driver’s responsibilities are, and how these things will affect drivers’ behaviour. If a driver feels that they are not responsible, I can imagine that they could take their eye off the ball as far as certain things are concerned. Will they be as vigilant as they should about the things that they should very much keep their eye on? If we do not get this right, the safety gains risk being outweighed by accidents involving drivers who have not operated the vehicle in the correct manner.

I am glad that the Government are considering the issues. One the mechanisms is the consultation on updating the highway code, although I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that; as I understand it, the proposed changes do not distinguish between different types of autonomous vehicles. I wonder whether that is the right approach. I would also welcome clarification on what measures will be taken to ensure that those who purchase or operate an ALKS vehicle are fully aware of driver responsibilities for that vehicle type. Indeed, what steps will be taken to make sure that any driver of any category of autonomous vehicle realises the extent of their responsibilities? That may be accidents and the insurance side of things, or just what is expected of them behaviour-wise. Would they, for example, have to take an additional driving course on top of the standard test? Will there come a point when the standard test is amended to take these things into account? Could there be a situation where somebody has not got the standard driving licence but is able to drive an autonomous vehicle because less responsibility is required from them?

It is disappointing that the Government have chosen not to wait until the findings of the Law Commission’s regulatory review into autonomous vehicles are released later this year. That will be crucial in determining responsibility when accidents occur, which we have discussed, and in advising on that regulatory framework. I understand the desire to open up this new market, but as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) said, it is perhaps a bit early to race ahead. Forgive me—it is impossible to avoid puns about driving, in the same way that we suddenly start talking about being “on track” and “on board” and so on when we talk about rail.

Finally, I want to express my concern about how this fits in with the decarbonisation agenda. Obviously, we need to do much more to green our transport system. The switch to electric vehicles, and the ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles from 2030 and of hybrids from 2035, are really important. As I understand it, autonomous vehicles could lead to emissions reductions by reducing congestion or because people go for an electric model, but they would not necessarily all be electric. Researchers at Imperial College London have highlighted concerns that automated vehicles could actually lead to an increase in global transport emissions if they are mostly fuelled by petrol and diesel, and if more people feel able to use them on the roads.

Although driverless cars are an exciting prospect and something to encourage, they are not the answer to the immediate need for better public transport, for investment in a comprehensive electric vehicle charging network, for making electric vehicles affordable for more people, and for encouraging people to use private vehicles less and to walk and cycle more. I know that the Government are considering all those issues. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on how those problems will be addressed, and reassurance that the Government are not speeding ahead without the necessary regulation and consensus on the policy area.

00:02

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) on securing this important debate, which has achieved a hugely welcome degree of cross-party consensus —that is very positive. I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss with hon. Members the numerous potential benefits of self-driving cars. In his capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on connected and automated mobility, my hon. Friend has done an extremely good job of setting out the policy landscape.

I assure all hon. Members, because everyone has raised this point, that the Government are absolutely committed to realising those benefits for the UK, but for that to happen, the public must have confidence that safety and security are at the heart of how the technology is deployed and developed. Our code of practice for trialling automated vehicles on public roads states that there must be a safety driver who is ready to take control if needed. That means that the technology can be tested in a way that ensures safety and responsibility.

When highly automated driving technology is ready for public use, we must have a way to check that the vehicles are safe and secure by design, not only for passengers, but for all road users. That is why my Department is progressing, alongside some of the investments that my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, a programme of work that will adapt our assurance processes for self-driving vehicles.

A number of Members referred to the fact that it is a complex landscape of regulation and legislation, and of manufacturers and Government working together, but I assure everyone listening that as manufacturers bring new self-driving vehicles to the market, they will have been extensively tested by the regulator.

[Christian Wakeford]

We have talked about the improvement of the economy thanks to driverless vehicles but, with the introduction of the super deduction and freeports, what does the Minister think the impact on manufacturing will be?

[Rachel Maclean]

That is an extremely fair point, and one that a number of people have raised with me. In fact, in my experience and from my discussions with manufacturers, industry experts, academics and other researchers, all the indications are that the technology and the industry have the potential to create jobs. Of course, those jobs will change because we will shift some of them from one particular skillset to another, but as Members have set out, we see this as a boost to the economy, and that means the creation of new high-skilled jobs. This is a massively exciting opportunity to level up the UK, including my hon. Friend’s Bury South constituency, which I am sure will be eager to take part.

The regulation programme that we have created is called CAV PASS. It is one of the most comprehensive programmes of its kind in the world. More widely, as the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned, we have asked the Law Commission to undertake an extensive review of transport legislation to support the safe deployment of automated vehicles. We expect recommendations by the end of the year, which will inform future regulatory reform.

The work we have undertaken so far has earned us a reputation as a world leader in policy and regulation. It ensures that we are ready for this step change in transport. We are acting to seize the opportunities for the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North will be aware, the Government are supporting a portfolio of exciting self-driving vehicle technology projects, including investing nearly £20 million into autonomous vehicle projects within Milton Keynes alone. Last autumn, I had the great privilege of a comfortable and enjoyable ride through the Milton Keynes countryside in one of the Government-supported self-driving Nissan HumanDrive vehicles.

On that point, the hon. Member for Bristol East talked about being in such a car. I would encourage her to do so. I am sure that Nissan would be happy to give her a ride. It is not only incredible and amazing, but very underwhelming at the same time, because it feels incredibly safe. It feels like going in a normal car. As soon as people experience it, they can definitely see the potential to transform the way we move around.

Government investment in self-driving vehicles spans the country from Cambridge and Milton Keynes to the west midlands, up to Scotland and across to the west of England. We have enabled joint public and private investment of £400 million in vehicle innovation since 2014. A vast number of potential benefits for the UK could help our world-leading automotive industry develop in the future, including safety on our roads—as everybody highlighted—reducing congestion and improving productivity through more efficient use of road space. There is the potential to improve access to transport for everyone, including people with disabilities, as the hon. Lady rightly said.

As we focus on building back better following the pandemic, the potential economic benefits of self-driving vehicles in the UK are vast. It is predicted that, by 2035, 40% of new UK car sales could have self-driving capabilities, with a total self-driving market value of £42 billion and the potential to create 38,000 new highly skilled and well-paid jobs. We have already seen millions of pounds of private investment coming into British small and medium-sized enterprises, which are leading the way on automated vehicles.

On supporting existing jobs, I know how important the automotive industry is to the west midlands and to my constituency of Redditch. Just as we support the UK’s automotive logistics and mobility service companies in their transition to zero emissions, we help those sectors to get ahead in the global race to harness self-driving technology and to ensure that the new jobs of the future come to the UK, rather than go elsewhere. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) mentioned that point, and I hope to reassure him that that is absolutely the UK Government’s objective. In short, I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North that this technology can help to make our journeys safer, greener and more reliable.

To talk a bit about the technology, this futuristic technology is already here. That is why we recently announced that the automated lane keeping system—the ALKS—could be the first legally defined self-driving technology to be allowed on the road.

[Christian Wakeford]

I thank the Minister for kindly giving way a second time. On the ALKS—apologies for the abbreviations, I think we are all tired of them in this conversation—what assurances will she give that, given the motorway improvements we have seen throughout the country over the past few years, such as smart motorways and concrete central barriers, in trying to address a problem, we are not creating another one and giving more heartache to drivers?

[Rachel Maclean]

That is a totally accurate and important question. We will not allow any self-driving vehicles on to the roads unless they comply fully with the regulatory regime set out by the UNECE organisation—the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. That includes being able to recognise and respond to any signs, whether smart motorway signs or any other signs that would appear in the domain in which they are legally licensed to operate. To be clear, we will not let anything on the roads that cannot operate safely under any condition that it might find itself in.

The ALKS system is designed to be used in slow-moving motorway traffic, such as a traffic jam. When the traffic speeds up, the vehicle will require the driver to take control again. Crucially, that is a step beyond what is already available, because it will allow the driver legally to disengage while the autonomous system is driving the vehicle. We will list models with ALKS technology as automated on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that they are safe and meet the legal requirements. The vehicle is only half of the story, because all of this means changes for drivers as well, and they must know their role. That is why we are consulting on amendments to the highway code to clarify the responsibilities of drivers of automated vehicles.

Before I conclude, I will refer to the comments that Members have made. I thank everybody for their extremely well-informed contributions and for their interest in the debate. They have all displayed encyclopaedic knowledge of cultural history and vehicles of the past, but I must confess that I am a bit more of a fan of David Hasselhoff than the cars. He was definitely a teenage heart-throb of mine.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who pointed out the benefits of reducing congestion. We in the Government absolutely agree that it would be a benefit of the technology. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley highlighted some safety concerns. He is right to do so, but I reassure him that we are a full member of UNECE, the international organisation that sets the overarching rules and frameworks, and we contribute to those. We work closely with the organisation, so we are fully aligned with all its safety requirements, which are stringent and rigorous. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) also mentioned safety, and I agree that the perception of safety is equally important as safety itself.

I reassure the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North that we will absolutely not be listing any vehicles that cannot respond to the red X signs on smart motorways or anywhere else. He is right to highlight the opportunities that the technology offers the whole of the United Kingdom, and the investment that we in the Government are putting into Scotland and the rest of the country is a huge benefit of our Union.

The hon. Member for Bristol East obviously has great knowledge of this area, and I thank her for her interest and support. She made some very good points, and I hope to continue constructive discussions with her. She made a good point about the importance of driver education, and we are working closely with the industry on that. At the point of purchase, drivers and purchasers need to be fully informed about the vehicles and their capabilities. She also mentioned the vital role that such vehicles have to play in our decarbonisation agenda. She is right to say that not all of them will be green vehicles, but there is huge potential for vehicles to share data and travel in a way that has much less impact on the planet.

[Gavin Newlands]

The Minister mentioned decarbonisation, so she will not be surprised to hear me ask this. When may we see the transport decarbonisation plan?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Member for asking that. We intend to publish that plan shortly.

[Kerry McCarthy]

We were all led to believe that the plan would be published in the spring. When does the Minister think spring officially ends?

[Rachel Maclean]

That is one of those questions that I am not qualified to answer, but I assure the hon. Lady that we are committed to publishing the plan shortly.

I hope that I have set out the wide range of Government efforts to make the UK the best place in the world to develop and deploy self-driving vehicles safely. The coming years will prove crucial in securing the many benefits of self-driving vehicles for the UK—for our economy, for the environment and for safe and accessible travel for all citizens. I thank everybody for taking part in the debate.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Having led the debate, voted twice and motored back from those two votes, I call Ben Everitt to respond.

17:54

[Ben Everitt]

Thank you, Dr Huq. Unfortunately, I came back under my own steam and not by any self-driving car. I thank the Minister for her comments, and I am very grateful for the contributions from everybody who has taken part in the debate.

I think I may have heard something like an invitation to have a ride in a driverless car in the Minister’s speech —yes please, I will bite off both of her arms.

I will talk very briefly about some of the comments that have been made. It has been an incredibly constructive debate. I am grateful to everybody, and to the Chair for allowing such a positive atmosphere.

My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) made an interesting suggestion relating to using machine learning for AI fleets, in relation to driver engagement, which I think is something that we should be taking on board. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), in his typically colourful way, alluded to a robot apocalypse. There is definitely some public perception around allowing AI to make decisions in relation to cars that conjures up those images. He then alluded to the battery technology that we will need to run these cars and the jobs and the boost for industry we will get as a result.

Referencing a future where we debate whether humans should be allowed to drive cars is probably the nub of this argument. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), mentioned that caution should be the watchword in this debate, but we should be cautiously optimistic and cautiously ambitious in the way we approach this.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) mentioned that the UK leads in innovation, but often falls at the final hurdle of implementation. This is an opportunity for us to do the whole lifecycle—the thinking, the regulation and the insurance, and to build these units and get them on our roads, in a safe and cautious manner.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) gave a very thoughtful and constructive contribution—I am very pleased—especially in highlighting the alphabet spaghetti of acronyms involved in this debate, and specifically the acronyms in the definition of an acronym. That was wonderful and I thank him.

We have covered all the ground that was not covered before. The debate has shown that, although there are ongoing concerns about driverless cars, connected to autonomous vehicle technology—I know we are looking at addressing those—we have a huge opportunity to do something quite special. We have already seen this in Milton Keynes, as the Minister referenced. It is an exciting field. It has the power to decongest our roads—to get people into new jobs, to get people out and about, to reduce air pollution, to boost jobs and our economy. I thank everybody for their time this afternoon, for indulging my voting habit, and thank you, Dr Huq, for your chairmanship.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of driverless cars.

17:58

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Written Statements

Wednesday 26 May 2021

Immigration Fees: Public Consultation

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

and There is a long and proud tradition of non-UK service personnel serving in the British armed forces. Together with their British and Irish counterparts, they defend the UK at home and abroad. The British armed forces are renowned and respected around the world and applications from non-UK personnel are always welcome and of a high calibre. The Ministry of Defence is a modern employer and embraces recruiting talent from all elements of society and the advantages of continuing to have non-UK service personnel serving in the British armed forces and the diversity and skills they bring are hugely valued.

Non-UK service personnel are exempt from immigration control during their regular service in the armed forces. Many of these brave men and women who serve our country may wish to stay in the UK after their service and use the skills they have gained during their service to contribute positively to our society. In order to do so they must regularise their immigration status, however, some are deterred from applying to regularise their immigration status because of the costs of doing so. In order to assist those who wish to remain in the UK after their discharge, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office have already agreed to extend the period that non- UK citizens who are members of the British armed forces can apply for settlement in the UK from 10 weeks before their discharge to 18 weeks before their discharge.

We are also announcing the launch of a public consultation on a draft policy proposal on the settlement fees which apply to non-UK service personnel on leaving the armed forces. The draft policy proposal allows for the Government to waive settlement fees for non-UK service personnel who meet certain criteria should they apply to remain in the UK at the end of their military service.

Currently, the Home Office charges a fee on each individual who wishes to regularise their immigration status by applying for indefinite leave to remain in (or enter) the UK, more commonly known as settled status or settlement.

Under the draft policy proposal, the UK Government would waive the fee charged by the Home Office when the non-UK service person applies for indefinite leave to remain (or enter), if they have served in the regular HM armed forces for at least 12 years and wish to settle in the UK following their service.

We are seeking public opinion on whether the Government waiving settlement fees for service personnel is something which is right and appropriate to do, and also to invite input on the scope of the policy.

The public consultation has been published today and will run for six weeks.

[HCWS57]

Events Research Programme: Contingent Liabilities in relation to Cancellation Compensation for Event

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)]

I am tabling this statement for the benefit of all Members of this House to bring to their attention the departmental minute issued today that provides the House with notice of a series of small contingent liabilities created by my Department. This is in relation to a policy to compensate event organisers participating in phase two of the events research programme in the event of their cancellation if public health concerns were to give rise.

The world-leading events research programme ran its first phase of nine pilots—with some running multiple events—in April and May to inform decisions around the safe removal of social distancing at step 4 of the road map. A second phase of events will continue to build on existing evidence and collect additional data to inform organisers and consumers on the logistical and practical considerations of reopening events safely. The pilots cover a range of settings, venues, and activities so that findings will support the full reopening of similar settings across multiple sectors.

The Government will provide compensation on a discretionary basis to event organisers should a pilot event be cancelled due to public health reasons.

This compensation will be capped at £300,000 per event and will cover costs incurred in relation to participation in the programme only—e.g. admission of spectators, recognising the fact that these events would have taken place in line with roadmap restrictions should the programme not exist. In the case of the Liverpool events, as these have been put on specifically as part of the programme, the Government will compensate organisers in full should an event be cancelled, but this will be capped at £300,000 in total across the Liverpool events.

The Government do not intend to cancel any event in the programme, however public safety comes first and therefore it is prudent to provide this assurance to the organisers assisting the Government in reopening the economy.

A copy of the departmental minute will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS58]