House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
New Member
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House briefly to allow the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I wish to make a statement about the senior leadership of the House of Commons service. I am pleased to announce that, following a competitive recruitment process, Marianne Cwynarski CBE has been appointed as director general of the House of Commons service with immediate effect. Marianne is currently the managing director of the Governance Office and the secretary to the House of Commons Commission. She has taken a leading and very successful role in ensuring that the House service has been able to operate effectively during the covid-19 pandemic. I wish personally to congratulate Marianne on her appointment and look forward to working with her in her new role. I am sure the House will agree that she has already given sterling service to this House—may that continue.
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Caroline Ansell [V]
Early feedback from my local school leaders suggests that tutoring is going to make a real difference, but there is some small concern that it can come with an opportunity cost in the school day, potentially affecting pupils’ experience of a broad and balanced curriculum, especially the creative arts and sports. Is that therefore an important consideration in the debate about having a longer school day, especially if tutoring could prove to be the longer-term strategy that we need to address the pre-pandemic attainment gap?
Mr Speaker
Secretary of State, will you please pick up the first part of the question?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. As we bring forward the largest investment in tutoring that this country has ever seen, we want to look at how we can continue to make changes and improvements to the whole of the school day. That way, we can not only embed the tutoring revolution that we are driving forward but ensure that the other areas of enrichment that are so important for a child’s development are properly incorporated into any changes.
Jason McCartney
My area of Kirklees continues to have higher covid case rates than the national average, which means that more pupils and students are having to self-isolate and miss classroom teaching, which has an increased impact on wellbeing and mental health. Will the Secretary of State please tell me what extra catch-up funding and support is available for schools and colleges in areas such as mine, where there are above average rates of absence?
Gavin Williamson
As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is a £650 million universal catch-up premium, as well as the recovery premium. That funding is very much to ensure that schools such as those in his constituency are best able to target that money at the areas that will have the most impact on children. We must not lose sight of the fact that children from whatever background have been impacted as a result of covid, which is why we have always aimed to have flexibility in the system so that schools can support all children.
Henry Smith [V]
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. What particular support will be made available to disadvantaged pupils who have a disability and are therefore more affected still?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend raises a vital point. That is why we took the decision to ensure a higher rate of funding for special schools and for schools that provide alternative provision, recognising that they will want more specialist and one-to-one tutoring for those children.
Mark Logan [V]
Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss Tutor the Nation, which is now being rolled out right across Bolton, and the lessons that it might provide for the rest of the country?
Gavin Williamson
I would very much like to hear not only how Tutor the Nation is tutoring Bolton, but how we can do so much more to tutor all the other parts of the nation as well, so I would be more than delighted to meet my hon. Friend. I will ask my office to get in touch with him so that we can meet to discuss the work that Tutor the Nation is doing in his constituency.
James Sunderland
Will the Secretary of State please update the House on progress with the special educational needs and disability review and also confirm that we will be investing more in focused intervention for those who need extra support?
Gavin Williamson
I know that this issue is close to my hon. Friend’s heart. Yes, we have been making progress on the special educational needs review. Sadly, as a result of a pandemic, the speed at which we had hoped to bring it back to the House has been slowed, but we will be providing an update in the near future. It is incredibly important that our interventions for children with the most acute needs are specially tailored to address not only some of the challenges that covid has thrown up, but the continuing challenges that all children with special educational needs experience.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House what proportion of children will have received tutoring under the national tutoring programme by the end of this academic year?
Gavin Williamson
We had set out the aim of having a quarter of a million children going through the national tutoring programme, but, as a result of the take-up of the programme and the success that individual and small group tutoring has had, we have set out an ambition and an aim to massively expand that programme over the coming years.
Kate Green
The latest figures show that it is just under 3% of pupils in this academic year, and even the funding for next year will reach only 8% of students, yet last week in Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that the Government want to get on the side of all kids who do not have access to tuition and support them. Why did the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister fail to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to invest in what Sir Kevan Collins said is needed to secure children’s futures, or does he in fact agree with the Chancellor who has said that the Government have “maxed out” on support?
Gavin Williamson
The Prime Minister and I have outlined a clear plan to roll out tutoring to 6 million children up and down the country. We recognise the importance of small group tutoring and how it can benefit every child. That is why we have set out our ambition, and that is what we will deliver. It has already been an incredibly successful programme. We want to build on it. We want to add extra flexibility for schools so that we can reach all children right across the nation.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to the Chair of the Education Committee, Robert Halfon.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
Even before the pandemic, persistent absence—pupils missing 10% or more of their education—was alarmingly high, at 13.1%. As pupils have returned, the overall rate has remained stubbornly high at 13%, or at around 916,000 pupils. For secondary pupils, it has actually risen from 15% to 16.3%. What are the Department’s plans to bring persistent absence down?
Gavin Williamson
This is an incredibly important area. At the very start of the pandemic, we set up the regional education and children’s teams—REACT—which were a co-operation between schools, local government, the Department for Education and the police in order to target some of the youngsters who struggle the most and are most likely not to be in school. We continue to expand that work through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to help the families who struggle the most, and recognise that it is children in that category who are most vulnerable and possibly the most likely to have persistent absence from schools. We will continue to work across Government, recognising that it is not just about schools, but about local authorities, the police, health and social care coming together to bring children back into the classroom and to ensure that they are not missing out on school.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is important that pupils are well prepared to manage their money, make sound financial decisions and know where to seek further information. Financial education forms part of the citizenship curriculum, which can be taught at all key stages but is compulsory at key stages 3 and 4.
Alex Cunningham
In 2013, the Money and Pensions Service found that our money habits and attitudes towards finance are formed by the age of seven. However, eight years later the Government have still not made financial education compulsory within the primary school curriculum. Does the Minister agree that teaching our children positive saving habits at a young age is vital to their financial futures, and that dormant assets from the savings and investment sector could fund initiatives such as KickStart Money to deliver primary financial education for all?
Nick Gibb
The priority at primary school must be to ensure that all children have a firm grasp of the fundamentals of arithmetic: that they can add, subtract, multiply and divide; that they know their times tables by heart; and that they can add, subtract and multiply fractions. In 2013, the Government introduced a new primary maths curriculum that includes ratio and proportions, that teaches pupils to use percentages and that introduces them to algebra. In year 2, pupils are introduced to the values of our coinage. That is all fundamental to being secure in handling finances and being taught financial education at key stage 3.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
This Government value the arts and social sciences. High-quality provision in a range of subjects, including archaeology, is vital for our workforce and public services, and is culturally enriching for society. Universities receive a top-up from the taxpayer for all the subjects referred to, and although the Office for Students consultation has proposed changes to the amounts, it does not seek to remove the top-up entirely.
Margaret Greenwood [V]
The Government’s decision to cut funding to performing and creative arts, media studies and archaeology courses by a total of £20 million will diminish our future cultural offer, reduce opportunities for students and put jobs at risk. The University and College Union is campaigning hard to save jobs at the University of Chester; I pay tribute to it for doing so. Nevertheless, the university is still planning to make redundancies in some areas, including music, media and performance. Does the Minister recognise the huge contribution that arts and culture make to the UK economy and to all our lives, and will she support the UCU campaign to save jobs at the University of Chester?
Michelle Donelan
Despite the hon. Member’s claims, the strategic priorities grant accounts for approximately only 0.05% of higher education providers’ total income. The House should be under no illusion that this Government 100% support the arts, which is why we asked the OFS to invest an additional £10 million in our world-leading specialist providers, many of which specialise in arts provision, and why we have spent £2 billion through the cultural recovery programme, plus furlough and plus VAT and other reliefs—more than any other country.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Research by the British Academy has shown that of the 10 fastest growing sectors in the UK economy, eight employ more graduates from the arts, humanities and social sciences than the other disciplines, and MillionPlus states that
“there is an economic imperative to invest in creative arts education…job creation is double the rate of the rest of the economy.”
Just take media studies, which the Government state is not a strategic priority, despite our making some of the best films, TV, theatre and advertising in the world. Last year the UK saw inward investment in co-production spend in film and TV account for 83% of the entire production spend, underlining our global reputation. The Government seem to be unaware that this country is a globally renowned creative powerhouse. Can I just urge the Government to get into SHAPE—social sciences, humanities and the arts for people and the economy? Will the Minister accept that the benefit that this nation derives from university education cannot be measured solely in terms of its immediate economic impact?
Michelle Donelan
Just to reiterate, this Government are not disputing the value of the arts either to our economy or to our society. I want to fully confirm that on the record. We have asked the OfS to consult on altering the high-cost subject funding to enable a reprioritisation of some subjects towards the provision of high-cost subjects that support the NHS and wider healthcare policy, high-cost STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—subjects, and subjects meeting specific labour market needs. I reiterate that this accounts for only approximately 0.05% of higher education providers’ total income.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
I am committed to levelling up education, and see strong multi-academy trusts as the best vehicle for achieving this. That is why we are investing £10 million in four high-needs areas, including Ashfield and Mansfield, to improve pupil outcomes. Up to half of this will be channelled through the successful trust capacity fund.
Ben Bradley [V]
I welcome the news that Mansfield and Ashfield will get a share of that £10 million fund to drive school improvement in disadvantaged areas and to boost academic outcomes for our young people. That is very welcome indeed. The other half of this conversation is perhaps about the non-academic side—the cultural enrichment, extra-curricular activities and raising of aspirations that might support young people to reach their potential. What opportunities might exist in that kind of space for our schools to access support?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the enrichment that goes on in so many of the most successful schools right across the country. That is why we are absolutely committed to trying to work with trusts from across the country to target areas such as Mansfield and Ashfield to bring the most successful trusts into those areas to drive up educational attainment. We look forward to working with him. I will be delighted to sit down with him to discuss what more we can do to drive not just academic attainment across schools in his constituency but the rich cultural offer that schools can offer their pupils, which is incredibly important for all children.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It might be raining today in London, but in Glasgow and across Scotland the sun is out, which is great because over the next week Scottish schools break up for their summer holidays. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking the teachers and support staff for the great work they have done and will wish Scottish schoolchildren and young people a very safe and enjoyable summer holiday.
Improving academic outcomes for disadvantaged children needs strong, professional input, but hunger is not conducive to effective learning, so when will we see this Government mirror the approach of the Scottish Government and provide free school meals for all primary schoolchildren?
Gavin Williamson
I very much join the hon. Lady in thanking teachers not just across Scotland but right across the United Kingdom; they have done an amazing job. It is lovely to see her in the Palace of Westminster after a period of time. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that we support families and support children. That is why we are rolling out our holiday activities and food programme, which is an incredibly important part of supporting children not just by feeding them but by providing activities as well.
Carol Monaghan
Unfortunately the Secretary of State avoids the question. For many families on the edge, free school meals really do make a difference. It is a tale of two Governments, because the Scottish Government are focused on the health and wellbeing of children, including the transformational Scottish child payment of £10 a week per eligible child, and the UK Government are not taking action on free school meals and primary schoolchildren. Will he update the House on any discussions he has had with the Chancellor to provide more money in this area, and possibly even on retaining the £20 a week universal credit uplift?
Gavin Williamson
One of the great advantages of being a United Kingdom is that we are able to pull together and ensure that there is the support that has been made available, whether that is through the furlough scheme, which everyone within the United Kingdom has been able to benefit from; whether that is through the uplifts in universal credit, which everyone right across the United Kingdom has been able to benefit from; or whether that is through the continued action that we have undertaken to put in extra funding, including for free school meals and for the holiday activities and food programme, which the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, have been able to benefit from as a result of the Barnett consequentials that have fed through as a result.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
Maintained nursery schools are an important part of the early years sector and provide valuable services, especially in disadvantaged areas. The Government remain committed to their long-term funding and to reaching a long-term solution by working with the sector. Any reform of its funding will follow a public consultation.
Theresa Villiers
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but we need this long-term settlement for maintained nursery schools. There are three wonderful maintained nursery schools in my constituency, and their very survival is now in jeopardy. We need that long-term settlement and, even more urgently, we need a consultation on reallocating supplementary funding so that areas such as Barnet, which has got zero from that funding, can actually receive some of it as an interim solution to keep the maintained nursery schools above water until we get that settlement.
Vicky Ford
My right hon. Friend is a true, passionate spokesperson for the maintained nursery schools sector. Supplementary funding allows the local authorities to protect their maintained nursery schools at the 2016-17 funding level. Back in 2017, Barnet got a 23% increase in its early years funding rate. That is now the 11th highest rate in England, so supplementary funding was not provided because there was not a funding gap in the MNS sector to protect. The next spending review will consider future Government funding, including that for maintained nursery schools.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
We announced the first 50 rebuilding projects in February as part of the commitment to 500 projects over the next decade. A process to identify the next 50 projects, informed by the Department’s data on the condition of schools, began in March, and we plan to confirm which schools are included later on this year.
Christian Matheson [V]
The Secretary of State will know that Upton-by-Chester High School in my constituency is rated good, with an outstanding sixth form, but it needs a rebuild, and the local authority maintenance repair budget is inappropriate and insufficient. What advice can the Secretary of State therefore give to me, the governors and the headteacher at Upton High to ensure that we are on that next list?
Gavin Williamson
As tempted as I am to pre-announce that list to the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid I am not in that position. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss some of the challenges that he has. The reason that we have announced a commitment to the rebuilding of 500 schools, admittedly over a number of years, is so that we are able to have proper sight of some of the challenges that high schools and primary schools face, have proper information on their condition and have a proper understanding as to where that priority sits as part of a broader national priority. I would be very happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman to discuss that in further detail.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Over 1.3 million laptops and tablets and 75,000 4G wireless routers have been distributed to schools and local authorities. We are building on the Department’s significant investment in devices, platforms, training and digital services to develop an evidence-based strategy for the most effective long-term approach to digital technology in education.
Siobhain McDonagh
Before the lockdown, children on the wrong side of the digital divide were already leaving school behind their classmates. Schools closed, and despite the Government’s tech roll-out and the great community effort right across the country, a quarter of children on free school meals did less than one hour’s school work a week. This is not a problem for the past; closing the digital divide will be critical to genuinely levelling up our tech-reliant society. Will the Government support my campaign calling for every child entitled to a free school meal to have internet access and an adequate device at home?
Nick Gibb
I read the joint article in The Times this morning by the hon. Member and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) about the UNICEF report and her objectives, and I agree with much of what they have both written, particularly about the importance of closing the digital divide. I am grateful for the acknowledgement in that article of the much needed support to disadvantaged children that the provision by this Government of 1.3 million laptops and tablets gave. One should not underestimate the size and scale of that procurement: 1.3 million devices built to order, shipped, configured and delivered to schools and local authorities, all at a time of peak international demand for such computer equipment.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
We published guidance in 2020 on the delayed admission of summer-born children to a reception class where that is what parents want. In May, the Secretary of State issued a statement to ensure admissions authorities take these decisions in the best interests of the child, and we will legislate when parliamentary time permits.
Stephen Hammond [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend and the Department for their continuing support for my campaign to recognise the need for summer-born children to have that flexibility. He rightly says that the Department will legislate as and when is appropriate, but can I urge him to speak again to the Treasury to point out that it would be one of the most effective ways of levelling up and creating levelling-up opportunities? Will he meet me to discuss what the Treasury’s response might be and what more can be done to ensure that legislation is brought forward?
Nick Gibb
Yes, of course, I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. Summer-born children who defer entry to school by a year continue of course to be entitled to a childcare place before they start school, so the costs will depend on the number of parents who choose to delay entry and the need for childcare. However, I should say to my hon. Friend that, in the surveys we have been carrying out with local authorities, the vast majority of requests to delay entry and to return to school in reception rather than year 1 are granted by local authorities.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
In the past three years, there has been an 18% increase in local authority spend on school transport, reaching £1.3 billion in the year 2019-20.
Mary Kelly Foy [V]
Although St Leonard’s Catholic School in Durham has done its best to subsidise the cost of school transport for families over the past year, it can no longer afford to do so, and for some the cost per student will rise from £50 to £70 a month. Will the Education Secretary explain what the Government are doing to protect families in Durham from that increased and unexpected cost, and will he meet me before the summer holidays to discuss school transport?
Gavin Williamson
If the hon. Lady would be kind enough to send in more details of the issue she has raised, I would be very happy to organise for the Minister for School Standards to meet her to discuss in finer detail some of her concerns, some of the challenges that the local authority may be facing and what needs to be done by Durham County Council.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
Schools are under a legal duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children and must have regard to keeping children safe in education. The guidance is clear that, while anyone can be a victim of abuse, schools should recognise that some groups, including LGBTQ+ pupils, are potentially more at risk.
Michael Fabricant [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, but she will know that the Ofsted report identified a huge discrepancy between the knowledge of teachers of incidents that are harmful to young LGBT children and the actual experience of it, so what steps can the Department take to train teachers to recognise how harmful sexual behaviour actually affects LGBT young people?
Vicky Ford
The Government are committed to working with school leaders, governors and teachers to improve how they can better recognise the effects of sexual harassment and abuse, and better support victims. We expect the issues raised by LGBTQ+ pupils to be addressed as part of this really important work.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
It is vital that pupils are taught about climate change, which is why related topics are included throughout the geography and science curriculums from five to 14 and five to 16, respectively. That is mandatory in state-maintained schools. Academies must offer a broad and balanced curriculum, as exemplified by the national curriculum.
Munira Wilson
I hope the Secretary of State will join me in welcoming my hon. Friend the new Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) to the Chamber today. I am sure he will agree that it is critical that children and young people learn about the scientific causes and consequences of climate change, and that they are equipped for the future in terms of practical action and the impact on jobs and future careers. With fewer than 50% of GSCE pupils taking geography, what consideration has he given to creating a standalone subject that properly prepares and empowers our young people to engage with climate change?
Gavin Williamson
Of course I join the hon. Lady—and, I am sure, all Members—in welcoming a new Member to the House. It is a shame that the few Liberal Democrat MPs who are left could not be bothered to stay for Education questions. Perhaps that shows the priority that the Liberals put on education, compared with Conservative Members and Labour Members as well. It is nice that there is a lone voice on behalf of Liberal England.
It is incredibly important that climate change is taught, and it is vital that it is a key part of the geography curriculum. It is also an incredibly important part of the science curriculum. We know that science is critical to understanding climate change, and all Members of the House are deeply indebted to the former Member for Finchley, and her amazing work in highlighting global climate change in the 1980s, when she was Prime Minister. She was not just speaking to the United Kingdom; she was speaking to the globe. I am sure many Members, including Opposition Members, recognise the amazing work she did in ensuring that we understand climate change and can act on that.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
The Government’s education recovery plan includes £17 million for the Nuffield early language intervention. That excellent evidence-based programme targets reception-age children who need extra support for their language development. It is proven to help children make around three months of additional progress. So far, 40% of primary schools in England have signed up, helping 60,000 children in this academic year.
Geraint Davies [V]
Before the pandemic, 50% of children from disadvantaged backgrounds suffered a speech delay at school entry, and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has found that since the pandemic children of all ages from disadvantaged backgrounds have particularly suffered from the withdrawal of speech and language support. Will the Minister ensure that extra resources are provided for children of all ages from disadvantaged areas, with both digital and in-person support, so that their life chances are empowered not impaired, and that those in greatest need get greater support? Will she meet me and the royal college to discuss that?
Vicky Ford
In England, schools can use their recovery funding to purchase additional therapies such as speech and language therapies, and I have seen examples of where that has already happened. The funding we have given for recovery has included Barnett consequentials and money going to Wales, and I encourage the Welsh Government to look at the Nuffield early language initiative. Nearly a quarter of a million children have already been screened for it, and it is having real benefits in England. I encourage taking a look at it across the border, as it is a brilliant way to help children.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
The trade and co-operation agreement is based on co-operation between sovereign equals, centred on free trade and inspired by our shared history and values. The Department discussed the agreement with sector representatives and devolved Administrations, and we will continue to do so through bodies such as the Education Sector Advisory Group.
Alison Thewliss [V]
Thousands of EU academics have already left the UK for the EU, driven away by the UK Government’s hostile environment, the Government’s reckless cuts to funding and in-progress projects, and Brexit uncertainty, with up to 70% more per year leaving for work or study in the EU than at any time before the Brexit referendum. How will the Minister’s Government prevent an even greater brain drain to the EU from UK universities?
Michelle Donelan
The hon. Member touched on a number of points, including workforce and talent within the UK in our universities. Through the introduction of the new skilled worker and global talent route, the UK is actually giving top priority to those with the highest skills and the greatest talents, including researchers, scientists and academics to join our world-leading higher education sector. The global talent route ensures that highly skilled individuals, including scientists and researchers, can come to the UK and make an important contribution.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
The Government are investing £14.9 billion on research and development in 2021-22, the highest level for four decades. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy provides funding for academic researchers through UK Research and Innovation and the national academies, and published detailed allocations in May. I will continue to work closely with the Minister with responsibility for science, research and innovation, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway).
Dr Whitford [V]
The UKRI’s global challenges research fund was set up to promote international collaboration on global issues, including climate change and health. However, due to the reduction in overseas aid, the funding promised in 2019 has now been cut in half, causing projects to be cancelled and researchers in low-income countries to be made redundant. In many cases, the last two years of research will be wasted. How will the Minister get academics to commit time and energy in the future, when they cannot trust this Government to honour their commitments?
Michelle Donelan
The changes to the level of official development assistance quality-related funding made available to universities has been applied equally across the four nations of the Union, as the hon. Member will know. The Government’s research ODA spend includes the global challenges research fund, which has been allocated in line with the thematic, rather than geographic, priorities of the strategic framework for UK ODA, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, while prioritising high-value-for-money projects and existing legal commitments. I will be delighted to meet the hon. Member along with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responsibility for science, innovation and research to discuss this matter further.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
Alongside the £8 billion high needs budget, we fund the Autism Education Trust, which develops autism awareness training for education staff. Over the past decade, over 300,000 staff have been trained. We have also worked with the Department of Health and Social Care to include children in the autism strategy, which will be published shortly.
Jacob Young
The Mackenzie Thorpe Centre is a school in South Bank which provides autistic and neurodiverse young people from across Redcar and Cleveland with the support they need in their education. It is a great example how local authorities, working in partnership with specialist charities such as the North East Autism Society, can provide this type of enhanced support closer to home. Will the Minister come to Redcar and Cleveland to meet me and the North East Autism Society to see how it can expand its current support and replicate it elsewhere?
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend is a great champion for Redcar and I would certainly be very happy to visit schools in his constituency with him. I just want to take a moment to thank staff and students in schools and special schools all across the country, and to say this to children: “We know it has been such a difficult time, but children please do hold your heads up high. You have done so much. Be proud of all you have achieved during this pandemic.”
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Apprenticeships are a great way for employers to develop the skills they need to build back better, especially as we recover from the pandemic. We have increased the incentive payment to £3,000 for employers hiring a new apprentice. As of 4 May, 52,719 incentive payments had been claimed. We are also making apprenticeships more flexible, encouraging front-loaded and accelerated training, and introducing new flexi-job apprenticeships. We are also making it easier for levy payers to transfer funds to support new apprenticeships within small and medium-sized enterprises and within their local areas.
Cherilyn Mackrory [V]
I thank the Minister for her answer. Our world-class maritime businesses in Falmouth inform me that there is a shortage of qualified maritime and marine engineers. Will she work with me to see how we can best try to accelerate the hiring and training of such apprentices in this important sector so that marine industries such as the one here in Falmouth and across the UK can thrive and prosper?
Gillian Keegan
I would be delighted to work with my hon. Friend on such an important industry for her area. I am also delighted to say that there are over 480 apprenticeship standards approved for delivery that can provide strong support to the marine industry. These include a level 2 apprenticeship in maritime, mechanical and electrical engineering, a level 4 apprenticeship as a maritime operations officer and a level 6 degree apprenticeship as a maritime surveyor, all of which have been supported by expert trailblazers, including the Royal Navy, P&O Ferries and others. It is my hope that we will be able to use these standards and work together to build on the more than 7,000 apprenticeship starts in Truro and Falmouth since May 2010.
Jack Brereton
I thank the Minister for visiting Stoke-on-Trent College last week with my neighbouring Stoke-on-Trent MPs. Only 22.5% of people in Stoke-on-Trent have an NVQ—national vocational qualification—at level 4 or above, so does she agree that increasing the uptake of apprenticeships in Stoke-on-Trent is a key aspect of improving skill levels, supporting local industries and ensuring that more people can access the better-paid employment opportunities that we want to see?
Gillian Keegan
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why I was really delighted to join him and our colleagues—our other Stoke MPs—to visit Stoke-on-Trent College. It was great that we were able to meet students who are on a wide variety of pathways and see the fantastic facilities that our investment has enabled at this brilliant college. There have been nearly 30,000 apprenticeship starts in the Stoke-on-Trent area since May 2010. I encourage learners and employers to take advantage of the support, including the incentive payment of £3,000, and I am sure that he will welcome the establishment of a new Home Office centre that will create more than 500 new roles over five years, with an apprenticeship-first policy for hiring at the entry grades. I agree that they are absolutely vital to the development and economic recovery in Stoke-on-Trent and beyond.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am afraid the Minister just sounds like she is in denial. Between August and January, under-19 apprenticeship starts were 41% lower than they were in 2018-19. We keep telling the Government that their apprenticeship incentives are inadequate, and there has been widespread support for Labour’s apprenticeship wage subsidy proposal. The Conservative Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), has joined those calling for the Government to subsidise the wages of young apprentices and help to tackle this crisis of opportunity. Why will the Minister not work with us and Members right across the House to introduce Labour’s apprenticeship wage subsidy proposal?
Gillian Keegan
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not in denial. Perhaps he is forgetting the kickstart scheme, which also subsidises wages for six months for young people. That scheme is live and is going on for the rest of this year. In addition, it may have escaped his notice, perhaps, that many of the sectors have been in lockdown until relatively recently. If we look at apprenticeship starts, we notice that there is an acceleration in those using the incentive payments to get back to work. Of course, the £3,000 that has been provided can be used in any way that the employer wants to use it, including to subsidise wages. So there is a lot of support and I expect that the numbers will continue to increase.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
I thank everyone in the education sector for their dedication throughout the pandemic. Last week, I had the pleasure of watching the Second Reading of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill in the other place. The Bill will legislate for landmark reforms first set out in the skills for jobs White Paper to help to transform post-16 education and training, boost skills and get more people into work, helping us to build back better as we come out of the pandemic.
Tom Hunt
On Friday, I found out about the Diana Award anti-bullying strategy when I visited Gusford Primary School and I had the pleasure of meeting Harrison, a year 5 pupil, and Katie, a year 4 pupil. They are the two anti-bullying ambassadors for Gusford primary. Single-handedly, the two of them passionately seem to be on the way to stamping out bullying in the whole school and have actually required very little assistance from the teachers. The Diana Award, I understand, is currently awaiting funding and has put in an application to the Department for Education. Will my right hon. Friend confirm here today his commitment to supporting all the work they are doing to tackle and prevent bullying?
Gavin Williamson
It sounds as if amazing work is going on at Gusford Primary School. That has been underpinned by the £3.5 million in funding available to charities and organisations such as the Diana Award. A number of organisations are currently bidding. I am afraid that I am not in a position to confirm which have been successful, but I understand that the Diana Award is one of those that has been bidding for the next tranche of funding.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Last week, the Early Years Alliance revealed secret Government documents that exposed that Ministers have been knowingly underfunding childcare, childminders and nurseries for years now, knowing full well that that would mean increased childcare costs for parents and lower-quality early education. Bearing in mind that in this year alone there has been a net loss of 2,500 childcare facilities in England, will the Minister apologise for covering this up? Will she explain to the House how she plans to rectify the very serious problem of underfunding in early education?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
I do wish sometimes that my opposite number would stop scaremongering. We have put unprecedented investment in childcare over the past decade: more than £3.5 billion in each of the past three years. There are always a number of reasons why providers come and go from the register, including mergers and acquisitions. The key thing is whether or not there are sufficient places for children. We monitor the market very closely, and we are continuing to see that there are not a significant number of parents who are unable to secure a childcare place this term or since early years sectors reopened in June.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The consultation closed on 13 May and we are looking at the response very closely. We really want to bring post-qualification admissions forward as rapidly as possible. We would like to do so without legislation and in co-operation with the sector, but if we are not able to have that co-operation, we will drive this forward. All the evidence, from the Sutton Trust and from so many others, is clear that PQA helps children from the most disadvantaged families more than any others. That is why we will make it happen.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Gavin Williamson
We always look at the latest evidence and take the very best guidance. We are very proud of our building programme in schools, in new build and refurbishments, but we always look very closely. As the hon. Lady will be aware, there is some debate as to whether deluge systems or mist systems are best, but we are always guided by the best advice and the best evidence in our school building programme.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Gavin Williamson
I am aware of how important this is. We look at all legislative opportunities to see how this can best be done, and we are committed at the earliest opportunity to making it happen. We want to see Catholic sixth-forms in a position to be able to academise, because we have seen the benefits that that can bring to so many schools. I will happily work with my hon. Friend and others to ensure that it happens at the earliest moment.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
We have every expectation that by the autumn term we will be able to move forward beyond step 4, meaning that there will be no further restrictions on the provision of in-person teaching and learning. During the pandemic, many providers have developed a digital offering and, as autonomous institutions, they might choose to retain elements of that approach, as well as undertaking risk assessments, but our expectation is clear that universities should maintain the quality, quantity and accessibility of provision. In terms of international students, we have been one of the world’s leaders in our visa concessions and flexibilities. I shall continue to work closely with the Home Office and the Department of Health to ensure that the best interests of students are always maintained, as well as public health.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
Vicky Ford
The £3 billion education recovery interventions are largely targeted towards those children who need the most help. The catch-up and recovery premiums can be used flexibly by schools to support pupils with special educational needs, including those with dyslexia.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
Vicky Ford
We have, of course, increased our high needs budget by nearly a quarter over the past two years and put additional funding, through the recovery and catch-up programmes, towards special needs, supporting those children who need to be in special schools and not mainstream schools, but I would be happy to meet the hon. Member and look at the specific case that he has raised.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
I would very much like to thank Kash Singh for the work he has done on this amazing project, and it is incredibly important that schools take part in it. We have already asked schools to participate, and I am happy to reiterate the endorsement of the project from the Dispatch Box and to encourage them to play their part in it.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Gavin Williamson
I have regular discussions with the Home Secretary and across Government on this issue. It is vital that everything is done to address this. I know that this is something that is felt on both sides of the House. We will continue to put in all the resources and all the effort required to tackle this vital issue.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
My hon. Friend is right: technical skills and education are vital to our modern economy, and never have we seen that more clearly than during the pandemic. The Conservative Government are encouraging more students into STEM education at all stages, from primary to higher education. We are proud to have rolled out multiple programmes to increase support for and uptake of STEM subjects, including through the National Centre for Computing Education. We are also investing £138 million to fund the roll-out of skills bootcamps across the country and free courses for jobs, through which adults can study for qualifications such as a diploma in networking and cyber-security or a certificate in systems infrastructure. I am delighted that, from September, Buckinghamshire College Group will offer our new employer-designed digital T-level.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
Gavin Williamson
We continue to support recruitment to the teaching profession with an extensive bursary scheme to incentivise people to take up teaching, especially in areas with the greatest shortage. We remain committed to our £30,000 starting salary for teachers, which we recognise is an incredibly compelling offer for many people. Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that last year a record number of people chose to enter the teaching profession, and we expect similar results this year.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
Gavin Williamson
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who campaigned hard to get the funding to deliver the rebuilding of Lytham St Annes High School for his constituents. We will continue to work with all schools throughout the remainder of this academic year to ensure that there is as much support as possible for students, whether through the recovery premium that schools have been receiving or money made available for summer schools, so that schools can put on additional activities. The further education sector has also been supported to support its pupils, so they can get on and get the best opportunities.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Gillian Keegan
I will update the hon. Gentleman. We have been working with the Department for Work and Pensions to extend to 12 weeks the time that those who are claiming universal credit can undertake college courses. Anyone who wants to attend one of the boot camps we are rolling out across the country can complete the programme, with up to 16 weeks in total.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Department of Health and Social Care is closing the asymptomatic testing and lateral flow testing facilities at the University of Hull on 31 July, despite the fact that the university remains open during the summer for staff, postgraduates, international students and students who cannot return home, despite the fact that not all students have been double vaccinated, and despite the fact that the number of cases is rising. Will the Minister for Universities intervene urgently and speak to her colleagues at the DHSC to keep testing open at the University of Hull?
Michelle Donelan
As the hon. Member will know, we have worked very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care throughout the pandemic, and the testing offer for students continues to be as accessible as possible. In addition, students can utilise the universal testing offer. I will continue to work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care in regard to summer provision as well as autumn provision, and I am happy to meet her to discuss this further.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Ministers failed to secure over 90% of the funding called for by Kevan Collins for the catch-up fund, and we have just discovered that 100,000 vulnerable students and disadvantaged students will miss out on the pupil premium because Ministers have failed to secure the funding. Over the weekend, when the Chancellor was asked, he gave the reason why: because he cannot fund every cause that
“comes knocking on my door.”
Do students in this country not deserve a set of Ministers with the skill and determination to get through the front door of the Treasury and come out with the investment that our schools, students and teachers need?
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
We have announced a £1.4 billion education recovery package, which is the third announced in the last 12 months, coming on top of £1 billion announced in June 2020 and £700 million announced in February last year. That £1.4 billion will provide an extra £1 billion for tutoring, which will provide up to 100 million hours of tutoring. That is 6 million 15-hour courses for five to 16-year-olds and 2 million 15-hour courses for 16 to 19-year-olds. This is a huge package. We are now reviewing the time aspect of the recommendations made by Sir Kevan, and that will report into the spending review later this year.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A few moments ago, the Secretary of State—I am sure inadvertently—in answer to me said that he and the Prime Minister had a plan to roll out tutoring to 6 million children across the country. That is an error that was also made last week by the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions. As I am sure the Secretary of State will wish to make clear to the House, the correct figure is 6 million tutoring sessions. That is slightly different.
Gavin Williamson
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. To be absolutely clear, we aim to roll out tutoring for 6 million pupils across the country.
Mr Speaker
Right. That has gone on the record.
I now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
End-to-end Rape Review
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Lord Chancellor, I wish to remind Members that the House’s sub judice resolution means that reference should not be made to any case in which proceedings are active in the United Kingdom courts.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make a statement. I want to put on record my thanks to the Opposition Chief Whip, too, for allowing some valuable Opposition day time.
I would like to make a statement on the Government’s end-to-end rape review report on findings and actions. Rape and sexual assault are some of the most horrific offences dealt with by our criminal justice system. They can leave devastating effects on victims for life. While the majority of victims of rape are women, this crime can have a devastating effect on male victims as well. Over the last five years, we have seen an alarming decline in the number of police referrals, charges, prosecutions and convictions for these sorts of crimes—a trend that the Government are determined to reverse with urgency. I want to pay tribute to the bravery of victims and to commend their courage in coming forward to report these crimes. It is crucial that the system gives all victims the reassurance that they will be believed and that they will receive the right support, right from the moment they report their crime through to the conclusion of their case and beyond.
In March 2019, the national criminal justice board commissioned the first ever end-to-end review of how the criminal justice system handles rape cases. The rape review report and action plan outlines how we will act on its findings to deliver much needed improvements, building confidence in the system and encouraging more victims to come forward. That will enable cases that are better prepared from the start, more prosecutions of rapes, greater encouragement of early guilty pleas, and fair and timely trials. This has been a collaborative effort between the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Attorney General’s Office—I am grateful to the Solicitor General for being here today—the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which is something that we believe will be crucial to its long-term success. Alongside the action plan, a Government social research report outlining the underlying primary research in detail is also being published. I have laid that report before the House.[Official Report, 5 July 2021, Vol. 698, c. 8MC.]
Our action plan sets out a robust and ambitious programme of work to improve the way in which the criminal justice system responds to rape at every stage in the process, so that victims are better supported to get the justice they deserve and so that all our constituents can have confidence that perpetrators of these sickening crimes will be rightly punished. As the House will know, this has been a priority area for Government for some time, and I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the work already done, alongside the new actions that we are committed to delivering in the implementation of the review.
We appreciate that this is not the first piece of work in this area of criminal justice, and that both victims and stakeholder groups want change to happen as quickly as possible. The Government could not agree more, which is why the Minister for Crime and Policing will be personally pushing this work forward, and the Government will publish updates every six months detailing progress to ensure clear accountability. That will include scorecards monitoring progress against key metrics, including timeliness and victim engagement in each part of the system, and implementation of the action plan. Our ambition is for the volume of cases referred by the police for charging decisions and reaching court to return to 2016 levels by the end of this Parliament.
One of the key themes of the review is how we can create the conditions that will enable effective joint working between the police and CPS. It launched its joint action plan in January this year. That will enable both the police and CPS to work hand in glove to support rape victims and to secure convictions. In the implementation phase of the review, we plan to introduce joint decision-making guidance for CPS and police investigation teams that will be implemented as part of a necessary culture change. We will also build on the shared learning and development in the form of training and guidance around trauma, to develop understanding of its effect on victims right across the system. In the next 24 months, we will have a framework for a new operating model that can be adopted by forces nationally.
A key plank of our work to transform the way in which cases are dealt with is the pathfinder programme known as Operation Soteria, which is being launched to drive systemic and sustainable transformation in how the police and CPS handle investigations into rape and sexual offences. I am pleased to say that we have already begun to transform the support provided to victims by publishing a revised victims code, which sets out 12 clearly defined rights. We have invested record amounts in support over the last 18 months, including spending more than £70 million on rape and domestic abuse services in 2020-21 and £27 million on the expansion of the independent sexual violence adviser service—the ISVA service.
I accept that more needs to be done to reform support services to meet current and rising demand, and ISVAs play a crucial role. Research suggests that their involvement in the criminal justice system can make a victim 49% more likely to stay engaged and see their complaint through to its conclusions. With that in mind, we will shortly consult on a statutory underpinning for the ISVA role as part of the forthcoming victims Bill consultation. The police and CPS will work together to introduce minimum standards on how to communicate with ISVAs after a complaint is made, throughout the investigation process, through charging decisions and through court proceedings themselves. This will be done through a national framework to ensure that standards improve right across the country.
We are also committed to ensuring that no victim is left without a means of communicating through an extremely traumatic period in their life, which is why we are working to increase the capacity of the frontline technology used to examine digital devices. We will work with the mobile phone technology industry to support police efforts to provide swap-out phones for victims to use when their own devices are unavailable. Our ambition is that no victim will be left without a phone for more than 24 hours.
We recognise that the court experience can be particularly distressing. Last year, we rolled out section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to help support children and vulnerable adult victims and witnesses to give their evidence and be cross-examined sensitively. We are already piloting the same arrangements for intimidated witnesses and victims in three locations, and plan to increase that pilot to three additional courts. Subject to that evaluation, we aim to commence full roll-out to all Crown courts for this group, and will consider whether any further legislative change is needed. We also plan to test the use of section 28 in the youth court.
We will continue to explore how we can increase the use of special measures in rape trials, and will develop a best practice framework for rape and sexual violence cases during court proceedings. Additionally, we have asked the Law Commission to explore the use of rape myths and evidence about victim credibility at court to see whether there are changes we can make there to improve the experience for victims and give them the opportunity to present their best evidence. In addition, the CPS has updated its legal guidance to address rape myths and stereotypes.
We will go further than the work outlined in the review; later this year, we will publish a new strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, and we will consult on the new victims Bill. I am sure that the whole House will join me in acknowledging the many people and organisations who are working tirelessly to improve the way in which these cases are handled. I thank the organisations in this field. Their expertise, research and challenge is invaluable. I am incredibly grateful to Emily Hunt in particular, who has been working as an expert adviser on the rape review, and ensured that the voice of victims was heard loud and clear as the Government considered their approach.
I reassure the House that if the proposed actions do not yield sufficient change in the timescales that we have set out, the Government are prepared to look at more fundamental changes to the criminal justice system, including measures to strengthen accountability and governance more widely. The review represents just the beginning of this work. We must continue to challenge the entire system to deliver urgent and sustained change. We owe that to every victim of these terrible crimes. Every part of the system can and must do better; now is the time for it to deliver. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Last week, the Secretary of State took the bold step of saying that he was “sorry” and “deeply ashamed” for how he and his Government had failed rape victims. “Sorry” is a word that we do not hear often in this House, and we certainly do not hear it enough. It is, frankly, a difficult word for politicians to say, but when a politician says sorry, it means they are taking responsibility and expressing regret for mistakes that have caused large swathes of the public to suffer.
The Secretary of State was right to apologise, but his apology has been made meaningless by his attempt to avoid taking responsibility over the weekend. Under his watch, the conviction and prosecution rates for rapists have fallen to a record low. In the year 2016-17, there were 41,616 rapes recorded in England and Wales—a third less than currently—and there were 5,090 prosecutions and 2,991 convictions. In 2019-20, the most recent year for which we have available data, the police recorded 55,130 rapes but there were only 2,102 prosecutions and 1,439 convictions. Rape convictions and prosecutions more than halved in just a few years, even despite the number of recorded rapes having rocketed upwards.
It is impossible to separate those appalling statistics from the decade of Conservative cuts that have accompanied them. Funding for the Ministry of Justice has fallen by 25% since 2010. When asked by the BBC whether the removal of funding for legal services was linked to the downward trends, the Secretary of State admitted that that is “self-evidently the case.” Ten years of cuts to the courts, legal aid, police and the Crown Prosecution Service have created an environment in which victims are denied justice and criminals are let off the hook. The Lord Chancellor swore an oath
“to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”;
clearly, he has failed.
After we have waited two years for the review to be published, its recommendations do not go far enough. Despite the Secretary of State’s having admitted that his funding cuts helped to cause the crisis, almost no new funding at all is announced in the review. The review lumps in spending on domestic violence and rape as a headline to misrepresent the truth; the reality is that the vast majority of the funding for refuge accommodation—which is of course vital—has nothing to do with increasing rape prosecutions or convictions. The only mention of new funding is the £4 million over two years for independent sexual violence advisers. That equates to £15 per rape victim for a year. Does the Secretary of State really think that is enough funding to address the failings that the report sets out?
The review mentions the pre-recording of evidence for intimidated victims, which is a vital reform, but why are the Government re-piloting the scheme for a further two years when they have piloted it twice already? Does the Secretary of State doubt that the current two-to-three-year waiting list to get a rape case to court is leading to many dropping out? Why are the Government not funding specialist units for rape cases throughout the country? The pilot in Avon and Somerset has been successful, but the Government are going to roll it out for only one year, among just four more police forces—more piecemeal pilots and nowhere near enough funding and long-term commitment to make any real impact. We know the problems, we have the answers and the technology is in place—what is the hold-up?
As the Opposition spokesman, it is my job to hold the Secretary of State to account. For his apology to have meaning, it needs accountability alongside it. In their rape review, the Government outline their commitment to return the volume of cases being referred by the police and charged by the Crown Prosecution Service and then going to court to at least
“2016 levels by the end of this Parliament.”
We in the Opposition said that by the end of this Parliament is not good enough. Rape victims cannot be forced to wait another three years for conviction and prosecution levels to return to 2016 levels. We demanded that the Secretary of State met the target within a year, but, bafflingly, his response was to describe such a target as “constitutionally illiterate”. We know that this failure affects several Departments. We know that the Crown Prosecution Service is independent, with oversight by the Attorney General’s office. We know that the police are overseen by the Home Office. But we also know that the health of the justice system as a whole has a huge impact on the likelihood of a victim pressing charges, the police charging a suspect and a conviction being secured. Victims are facing delays because of the Justice Department’s cuts to the courts and legal aid, and it is because of those delays that 44% of rape victims are pulling out of the justice system altogether.
In describing such a target as constitutionally illiterate, the Secretary of State suggested that the record low prosecution and conviction rates for rapes were out of his hands. That runs counter to his previous apology in which he took responsibility for them. Does he, or does he not, take responsibility for this Government’s hollowing out of the justice system? If not, does he intend to take his apology back? Do the Government intend to meet their target of returning the number of rapists who face justice to 2016 levels, or have they done a U-turn and scrapped that target?
The Secretary of State cannot show disdain for the constitution whenever it suits him and then blame the constitution when he is trying to defend his own failings. Enough is enough. Will he reverse these failures within a year, or will he resign?
Mr Speaker
This is a very, very important subject and it is quite right that we are having this statement, but there are other Members besides those on the Front Benches whom I need to hear from. It is important to all colleagues to get on the record, so please, whether we are talking about the Minister or the shadow Minister, we must stick to the time that the House has agreed to. It is not what I have agreed to, but what the House and Members have signed up to. Please, let us ensure that everybody gets a fair chance.
Robert Buckland
I am mindful of your stricture, Mr Speaker.
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman very firmly about what I said? I rightly took responsibility and apologised for the overall failure that has led us to this situation. I do that as somebody who is politically responsible; I accept that without any qualification. I accept as well that resources are a matter for the Government, and I explained that, in the context of what we were left with, decisions were made back in 2010 that did indeed result in reductions. None the less, he will know as well that the issue with regard to the prosecution of rapes is not just about resources. It is about culture. It is about the way in which victims have, for far too long, been the focus of all attention. I know he agrees that that is inappropriate and that it is time for a much more perpetrator-focused approach.
When we calmly look at the figures for rape prosecutions over the past 10 or 15 years, we will see an encouraging rise from 2010 to about the middle of the decade, then a sustained improvement until about 2017-18, and then this very concerning decline that I have rightly acknowledged. That in itself tells us that something has happened here with regard to the way in which these cases are approached, and that has caused huge concern. There was a judicial review case about it that we are familiar with, which was hotly disputed between the Crown Prosecution Service and the sector, and, rightly, we waited for that to be concluded before we published this review. I say again to him what I said yesterday, which is that to in any way suggest that an increase in prosecutions and the bringing of cases should be linked to the fate or otherwise of a politician is constitutionally illiterate, dangerous, and the sort of approach that could lead to allegations of improper pressure being put on independent prosecutors.
I wonder whether, before he issued his public pronouncement, the right hon. Gentleman cleared it with his own boss. I can imagine the scene: me, as Lord Chancellor, speaking to the Director of Public Prosecutions in a way that would have crossed the line with regard to his prosecutorial independence; of course, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) was the DPP, and I am pretty sure about the answer that I would have got from him. I think that the silence of the Leader of the Opposition on this matter speaks volumes.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
This is a very important statement, and the Lord Chancellor knows that when he makes a bid for further funding for the justice system, there is compelling evidence from the Justice Committee’s evidence sessions to support that. In relation to the current issue, does he agree that one of the most striking figures is that of 52,000 cases reported as rapes or serious sexual offences, only 2,700 found their way to the Crown Prosecution Service, which has a high percentage of then charging? Does he agree that it is critical that the evidence file is available to the Crown Prosecution Service and that victims and complainants are treated sensitively? Can we find out more about what happened to the other 50,000 that never even made it to the stage of being considered by the CPS?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee is right to point out the significant difference between the number of complaints that are made and the number of cases that reach their way to court. I have long harboured deep concerns about those early stages in the investigative process when a complainant or a victim comes forward with a complaint and then is made to make some very difficult choices, most notably about handing over a mobile phone. A young woman’s life will be on that phone. What replacement is she going to have, and how is she going to manage without such an important device? Very often that sort of Manichean choice is given, which is wholly wrong. That is why I think at the early stages of the investigation we need to do more to support victims, which is why I regard the investment in ISVAs as key to making sure that we can make a difference and reduce that cliff edge. I want to consult further on other aspects of support that we can give victims at the earliest stage to make sure that, when it comes to disclosure, the rights of victims are protected just as much as the rights of the accused.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the Justice Secretary has acknowledged the woeful failure of the justice system to protect women and girls from the abhorrent crime of rape. Will he recognise that one of the things that deters victims from supporting a prosecution is that, when it comes to trial, it is they who are put in the dock by having their sexual history being dragged out and being made the focus of the trial, instead of the focus being on the defendant and what he actually did? Will he address this by backing the new clauses that have been put forward on a cross-party basis to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which will ensure that the defendants’ previous sexual history is only ever brought up in court when there has been a previous application to the judge, who has ruled that it is relevant to the particular issue on trial?
Robert Buckland
May I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Lady for her tireless work in this area? Indeed, she and I have regular dialogue about these issues and have done in the past. I will say several things in response. First, it is vital that existing protections are properly policed and used by the courts when it comes to restrictions on wholly inappropriate cross-examination. I have in particular asked the Law Commission to look at the whole issue about the trial process, and the rape myth issue that is still a real concern for many people who end up taking part in this process. But I will say this to her: I think it begins much earlier. I think the undue focus on the victim begins right from the initial investigation, and I think that that is wrong. I think that the proper emphasis in this report is about looking at the person who is alleged to have done it, rather than constantly focusing, as she rightly says, on irrelevant previous sexual matters that have nothing to do with the case and are an unwarranted intrusion into the private life of victims.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
It is absolutely vital that there is a focus on offender behaviour rather than victim credibility, which is and will have been a significant factor as to why victims fear coming forward. The steps being taken on ensuring victims and witnesses can pre-record video evidence is welcome, but what will be done to extend this to all the courts so that all victims and witnesses can have access to this?
Robert Buckland
I thank my hon. Friend, and I say this: we have already rolled out the section 28 provisions to cover intimidated witnesses, many of whom will of course themselves have been the victims of sexual offences. We are going further: we are working very hard with the judiciary to pilot more use of the pre-recorded cross-examination technology in the case of intimidated witnesses. I have indicated that I will be prepared to legislate, if necessary, to ensure that we can fulfil the scale of my ambition, but I have to work closely with the judiciary to ensure that the operational realities—listing pressures and the sheer way in which we can accommodate these hearings—are fully taken into account as well.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is of course vital that the charging and prosecution of rape cases improves dramatically, so that rapists are put in prison and survivors get justice, but we also need to stop rape and other forms of violence against women and girls happening in the first place, and that requires a cultural change across our society—all men and boys must understand that violence, harassment and abuse of women and girls is unacceptable. Does the Secretary of State agree that that cultural change must include making misogyny a hate crime, so that it is treated as severely as crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred, as well as better age-appropriate relationships and sex education in schools?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes some extremely relevant points and gets to the heart of the issue when it comes to the need to reduce the number of victims in the first place. I was very glad to hear her reference to the curriculum. A lot of work has been done to expand the curriculum on sex education and healthy relationships, and I pay tribute to the work not only of teachers, but of third sector groups that are campaigning actively to improve the quality of that provision. She will be glad to know that the violence against women and girls strategy, which was reopened in the wake of the appalling Sarah Everard killing, has received hundreds of thousands of responses. That is going to be the heart of the Government’s approach to prevention in order to achieve the goal that she and I share.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Most rape victims feel unable to pursue their case because they feel disbelieved or judged. That was highlighted in the DSD and NBV v. Met police in 2018. The words of DSD, who was a victim of John Worboys, were:
“The police made me feel that I’d made it all up.”
It meant that Worboys was able to go on and carry out 100 more rapes of women. The other victim, NBV, said that the police
“asked me whether I’d describe myself as a young lady who would wear red nail polish and red lipstick. They asked me how often I would go out drinking…The way they behaved made me feel like anything that had happened to me was because I deserved it.”
The behaviour of the police in this case is a stark demonstration of why so many victims give up, yet the Metropolitan Police Commissioner rebutted the case, saying that it made their job too difficult. Frankly, unless the senior management of the Met and other large police forces show a willingness to change and learn from these cases, I am afraid we will need to look for new senior management.
Robert Buckland
My right hon. Friend has very graphically illustrated some of the appalling experiences that many complainants and victims have undergone, and that is very much at the core of this review. We need to move away from the fixation with the credibility or believing of the victim and be much more about the perpetrator. If someone’s house is burgled, they do not expect to have a long trawl into their personal history and whether they had left an upstairs window unlocked or whether they had been drinking; it is about trying to find out who did it and who is responsible for the crime. It is that sort of approach that we need in rape and serious sexual offending.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The prevalence of rape myths and the lack of understanding of consent are known to act as barriers to justice for rape victims, and the Lord Chancellor rightly mentions the need for culture change. Will he therefore commit to bringing forward a strategy to provide training for the investigation of rape and alleged rape complaints, not only for the judiciary but for all jury members hearing such prosecutions?
Robert Buckland
The right hon. Lady is quite right to ask about the trial process. I think she knows that my fundamental view about this is that things go wrong well before cases get to court and that the gap between complaint and prosecution is the real problem. However, I fully take on board what she says. She will note that in the review we have committed to look very carefully—in fact, I have already asked the Law Commission to do this—at, to coin a phrase, the rape myth issue, to see whether the existing provisions are strong enough. I know that rape myths are already being challenged daily in our courts, but we want to look at whether more can be done, particularly on issues such as the assumption that a rape victim has to have some injury or bruising, which is clearly a misconception. A lot more can be done to dispel that myth with more comprehensive, perhaps medical evidence from the prosecution, but I look forward to working with the right hon. Lady, as I always do, on these important issues.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
We know that all too often rape is committed by someone the victim knows. Because of that, investigations are incredibly hard to progress and are incredibly intrusive for the victim as well. Many victims disengage from the process, which means that we cannot move those cases forward. My right hon. and learned Friend’s announcement on ISVAs is therefore incredibly welcome, but improving criminal justice outcomes will be difficult without a substantial increase in their numbers and their capacity. What measures will he put in place to do that and improve outcomes for victims?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to focus on the need for early support for victims. As I said in my statement, the evidence is clear that an ISVA can reduce quite dramatically the number of victims who drop their case. The funding that I have put in place will allow us to recruit an extra 700 ISVAs, and we will go further than that in the victims’ law consultation by creating a statutory framework within which the work of ISVAs can be recognised and a national standard set, to ensure a consistent approach across England and Wales.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Affairs Committee will take evidence on the Government’s response from the Victims’ Commissioner, Emily Hunt, who advised the review, Imkaan and Rape Crisis on Wednesday. In 2014-15, I raised serious concerns with the Government about the drop in rape arrests at that time, which were already falling, and also warned about the hollowing out of specialist police teams and specialist prosecution teams working on rape, with fears for the consequences. However, none of us would have anticipated quite how far the numbers of prosecutions would then plummet. Can the Lord Chancellor tell me what assessment he has made of the number of specialist police officers and specialist prosecutors working in specialist rape teams and how it compares with five years ago, and if he has not, why not?
Robert Buckland
I take on board the proper points of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I do not have specific figures to hand, but I can tell her that the RASSO—rape and serious sexual offence—units have been working for a number of years, from right back before 2014, bringing the police and the CPS together. I think a couple of things combined to make the figures so alarming. Most notably, there were a number of cases towards the end of 2017—such as the Liam Allan case, which we remember—where there was a genuine concern on the part of those representing accused people that somehow there was an issue with disclosure and that disclosure was not being done properly and thoroughly. That has long been a concern of mine, and I initiated work as Solicitor General to improve the way in which the disclosure was effected. I think that has had a chilling effect upon the approach to many cases.
I do not think it is right for me to apportion blame to anybody—far from it—but there is no doubt that we need to move away from the swinging pendulum—either the perception that it is swinging too far in the direction of too many cases being brought without evidence, or too far the other way, where only the safest cases are being brought and not enough is being done in respect of the volume.
I will take on board the right hon. Lady’s points about arrests. I think she will be encouraged by the review, which is a clarion call for a change in culture and in a way that the police in particular deal with the early stages of the investigation, but I will be happy to engage further with her on the detail.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
Following the John Worboys outrage, the Secretary of State was given the authority, through the reconsideration mechanism, to request that the Parole Board reconsider certain decisions. He does not need to apply the same high threshold as in judicial review grounds of law to deem a case irrational. I welcome the future root-and-branch review of the Parole Board, but will the Secretary of State confirm that he will stand by his welcome numerous references to being firm on those who commit the most egregious sexual offences and murders against women, and will he refer the appalling decision to release double child rapist and killer Colin Pitchfork back to the Parole Board?
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s assiduous campaigning on this most grave and disturbing case. The decision to reconsider is one that I am looking at very carefully. I am taking the fullest advice and will make an announcement within the 21-day period, which will be very soon.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Justice Secretary’s statement referred to rolling out the pilot to all Crown courts, but we all know that it will be rolled out immediately to only nine Crown courts out of 70-odd. On the basis that during the two years that it took to publish the review, there were 100,000 reported rapes, at what point will he reach every Crown court in the country?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman is right to press me on speed. I remind him that the decision to publish the rape review now was made in the light of a very important judicial review that was mounted by representatives of the sector; I listened to their representations and quite rightly waited for the outcome of that important case before publishing. However, I take the point. I am as anxious as he is to get on with things, but in respect of the section 28 roll-out I have to work hand in glove with the judiciary, who are operationally responsible: for example, a listing of a section 28 remote cross-examination will take some time in the court day. We have seen some really good examples in which it is working well, but I am listening very carefully to the judiciary’s observations about how it can be rolled out fully. I will push as hard as I can to achieve my personal ambition to see section 28 become the norm. Through the scorecard mechanism that we are introducing, we will be held accountable at regular intervals and he will have an opportunity to press me if he does not think that it is going fast enough.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said. As he recognises, what is done in the preparation of a case matters at least as much as what is said in court, so I urge him to link closely the work that the Government are already doing on disclosure with the work that he has described this afternoon. However, as he also knows, what is said in court matters too. To reinforce the point that the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) made, if we are to ensure that rape myths are properly challenged, will the Justice Secretary make sure that in his conversations with the judiciary he looks carefully at the judicial directions given to juries, and that if they need further refinement, they get it?
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend, who as Attorney General worked very hard with me on the issue of disclosure and started the process that resulted in the revised Attorney General’s guidelines issued last year. He and I both know from our professional experience that a badly prepared and badly run case, in terms of disclosure, can be extremely destructive and frankly a miserable experience for those involved. He will be glad to know that we are not only pledging to ensure that victims’ phones are returned after no more than 24 hours, but working on new technology to ensure that analysis of data can happen that much more quickly. We want to ensure that 10,000 devices are examined through the year, rather than being left for months and months before the investigation can be taken further. On the court process, he will be glad to know of my decision to ask the Law Commission to look at some of the enduring issues surrounding the trial process, which I think will address many of his observations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I was disheartened to hear that there are an estimated 128,000 victims of rape a year and that the reason that the figure is estimated is that less than 20% of victims of rape report to the police. Will the Secretary of State outline whether funding will be available to provide greater training for the first port of call in finding justice—the first police officer called to the scene—to help them to have a greater understanding of the needs of a rape victim in the first instance? Does he intend to provide additional funding for police forces throughout the UK to ensure that there are highly trained support-giving officers on every shift in every police district in every part of the United Kingdom?
Robert Buckland
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I rightly have to speak about England and Wales as a jurisdiction, but I know these issues cover all three jurisdictions. There are plenty of examples of good practice where suitably trained police officers do that sort of work. We want to ensure greater consistency, and over and above the combined CPS-police working, I want more external scrutiny, in particular examining and looking at cases to ensure that all necessary evidence has been gathered, rather than the case being dropped. That aspect of challenging and testing the evidence will be an important plank of what I hope will be an increased number of cases. This is about confidence, and all Members of the House want to give those who have suffered at the hands of perpetrators the confidence they need to come forward. I accept that confidence has taken a huge hit in the last few years, and I hope that through my acknowledgement of that, and my willingness to take action—something I know is supported by Members across the House—we can start to grow confidence and improve that vital trust.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I hear many times from friends and constituents the perception that if someone is a victim of crime, a rape, coming forward and reporting that will be painful—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made that point. People feel they will not be trusted, and there is a barrier because people are not even coming forward to achieve the possibility of justice. How will the Lord Chancellor hold the system to account for the actions to which his Government have committed, to ensure that the report is delivered on, and those barriers broken down?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to ask how we will measure this process; the scorecards, the data metrics, that will be published later this year will be a crucial way to do that. They will consider things such as victim engagement, the quality of files being processed, and the overall impact that that is having on the system. Those data will be an invaluable public source of accountability. I am prepared to go further. If we do not see the outcomes that I set out, we will of course have to look again at accountability issues. Given the excellent way that my hon. Friend opened her question, she will be glad to know that the CPS is in the process of developing new guidance for pre-trial therapy, counselling and support, with the aim of ensuring that victims get the support they need in a way that does not undermine or diminish the quality of their evidence. That could be a vital step forward for victims.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
Darlington and County Durham’s rape and sexual abuse counselling centre is working with around 300 survivors. We know that 44% of rape victims pull out of the justice system before their day in court, and most never come forward to the police at all, with trauma being a major reason for that. What measures has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that sustainable funding for the mental wellbeing and support of victims is available at every point on the pathway to justice, and beyond?
Robert Buckland
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I pay tribute to the work being done by agencies in Durham. As she rightly points out, that is an example of the very good practice we see in various parts of our country. She will be glad to note the increased funding that I announced for ISVAs, and our intention to go further in the victims’ law consultation to create a national statutory framework. She is right to press the issue of expenditure and funding, and in the past two years my Department has achieved, year-on-year, 5% increases in revenue funding. In the next spending review I intend to make a strong case for the need to ensure that the rape review, and its ambition, is met with results.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I have spoken to victims who were actually treated well by the police—they were looked after—but when the Crown Prosecution Service became involved, it all fell apart. What steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to improve collaboration between the police and the CPS so that victims get the full support that they need?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend rightly identifies the breakdown that can sometimes occur when one agency passes over responsibility to another. That should not be happening. There are plenty of examples where there is better practice, but it should be uniform. That is why, in the report, we place heavy emphasis on joint working between the police and the CPS to create a much more seamless approach to the support for victims. Victims find that if they have one main point of contact who is with them throughout the process, that makes things somewhat easier compared with the experience of others. That is a very important principle when it comes to the support that victims deserve. The victims code will, and does already with its improvements, set out fundamental and clear rights, and we will go further by enshrining those in legislation.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The review that the Secretary of State has presented quotes victims as reporting that the withdrawal of services in recent years has played a crucial part in their failure to secure a prosecution. He has said in the media in recent days that the lack of investment and the cuts in recent years have played a part in the fall in prosecutions, so if disinvestment in parts of the criminal justice system is part of the problem, why has he presented a plan to Parliament that includes almost no reinvestment in the system?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and, again, I pay tribute to the work that he has done on victims’ issues. Even though he has other responsibilities, I know that he will want to engage in the ongoing victims’ law consultation. I readily acknowledge some of the pressures and financial issues that have led to some services not being there, but some services were not even there in the first place. The number of ISVAs in the country is too low and that has historically been the case. I want to see not a return to a previous number but a new departure in the scale of support for victims. He will note the funding that I announced this year, which I want to follow up: I will continue to make the point and make the case that we need a sustained improvement in services to see long-term results. The hon. Gentleman’s voice is being heard.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
None of what has been said so far is going to get us very far. It is absolutely intimidating for a woman—an alleged victim of rape—to have to go through a traditional court procedure. Can we not think, in really radical terms, of replacing this confrontational system with something more like the family courts? In the context of alleged rape, it is quite right that the victim has anonymity, but if the perpetrator had anonymity as well—if the case was not going forward in a blaze of local or national publicity—we might actually get closer to the truth.
Robert Buckland
My right hon. Friend posits a very interesting point about the merits of perhaps a more inquisitorial or consensual system than the adversarial system, but I remind him—of course, he was a practitioner as well—that allegations of a criminal nature have to meet a high standard of proof, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution in these cases. There is no getting away from that, which is why, progressively over the years, we have done everything we can to improve and to allow the best evidence to come forward from complainants through the use of special measures, remote technology and, indeed, the TV link, which has been around for 30 years. I want to go further with regard to that and make sure that evidence can be dealt with as early as possible. I will no doubt have further discussions about this issue with him, but at this stage I believe that we can seek improvement through the existing system while, as I say, dealing with some of the unfortunate consequences to which he rightly alludes.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
This review applies to England and Wales only, but Scotland faces similar challenges. In 2009 I was privileged to be one of the first specialist sex crimes prosecutors in Scotland’s national sex crimes unit, and I am looking to its work being rejuvenated under the leadership of the Lord Advocate, my very dear friend Dorothy Bain QC. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that it is imperative for data accuracy, and for trust in official statistics, in public policy, in media reporting and in research and public bodies that the sex of those directly charged with rape or attempted rape is accurately recorded?
Robert Buckland
I join the hon. and learned Lady in her remarks about the Scottish system. I congratulate the new Lord Advocate and look forward to meeting her. As I have always said to the hon. and learned Lady, there is much that we can learn from the Scots and, I know, much that the Scots learn from England and Wales with regard to the prosecution of offences. [Interruption.] Oh, she must readily accept that. We were far ahead of the Scots with regard to rules on corroboration, for example. But it is not a competition; it is all about us learning jointly as part of our United Kingdom. With regard to the accurate reporting of gender, clearly the definition of rape itself will tell us about the sex of the perpetrator. That, in itself, should be the clearest indicator of the sex of the person who perpetrates these crimes. No doubt she and I will talk about this matter further. I think I know the drift of her question.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned that our lives are on our phones. Access to people who can give us comfort on our phones is greatly needed when going through a period of trauma, as are some of the victims of rape coming forward to the police. Can he give us more information about what he is doing to ensure that the ambition that phones will not be separated from victims for more than 24 hours will be achieved, and give us the timeline for that as well?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as a practitioner in the law, dealt with, in a family context, many of the consequences of serious sexual abuse. She will see that the report does include direct reference to our ambition to return phones within 24 hours, or to provide a swap-around service so that if the phone cannot be handed back, then a substitute will be given. However, this needs to go further with regard to investment in analytics. That is why this year I shall host a tech summit to bring together the sector in a way that can only lead to enhancements in the speed and quality of data analysis, because she is quite right that we need to improve that experience quickly.
Mr Speaker
I now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to the presentation of Bills. As the House can see—I do not think I have seen this many people in the Chamber for a very long time—we have a good many Bills to be presented today. In order to save time and to get on with today’s main business, for Members presenting more than one consecutive Bill, I will accept private notice of the dates of Second Reading for those Bills. These dates will be minuted accordingly in Hansard and in Votes and Proceedings. For Members presenting individual Bills, they will name the date for Second Reading as usual.
Registers of Births and Deaths
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Saqib Bhatti presented a Bill to make provision about the keeping and maintenance of registers of births and deaths; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 34).
Mental Health Provision (Children and Young People)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Munira Wilson presented a Bill to require the Government to report annually to Parliament on mental health provision for children and young people.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 35).
Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Carol Monaghan, supported by Martin Docherty-Hughes, Patrick Grady, Anum Qaisar-Javed, David Linden, Stewart Malcolm McDonald, Stuart C McDonald, Anne McLaughlin, Angus Brendan MacNeil, Chris Stephens, Alison Thewliss and Owen Thompson, presented a Bill to make provision for granting permission to work to asylum seekers who have waited six months for a decision on their asylum application; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 36).
Miniature Mobile Phones (Prohibition of Sale)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Atherton presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of miniature mobile phones; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 37).
Domestic Building Works (Consumer Protection)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mark Garnier, supported by Mr Steve Baker, Anthony Mangnall, David Morris, Kelly Tolhurst, Caroline Nokes, Jake Berry, Emma Hardy and Fleur Anderson, presented a Bill to make provision about consumer protection in relation to domestic building works; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 38).
Unsolicited Explicit Images And Deepfake Pornography
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Angela Richardson presented a Bill to create the offences of sending unsolicited explicit digital images and of producing digitally-altered images or videos in which an individual is depicted pornographically without their consent; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 39).
Local Authority Boundaries (Referendums)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Robbie Moore, supported by Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision to enable parliamentary constituency areas to form new unitary local authority areas if agreed by referendum; to make provision for such referendums; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 40).
Approved Premises (Substance Testing)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rob Butler presented a Bill to make provision about substance testing in approved premises and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 41).
Prime Minister (Temporary Replacement)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision for the carrying out of the functions of the Prime Minister in the event that a Prime Minister, or a person temporarily carrying out the functions of the Prime Minister, is incapacitated; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 42).
British Goods (Public Sector Purchasing Duty)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to place a duty on public bodies to have a presumption in favour of purchasing goods of British origin in purchasing decisions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 43).
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish an independent review of disablement caused by Covid-19 vaccinations and the adequacy of the compensation offered to persons so disabled; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 44).
Employment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Martin Docherty-Hughes, supported by Chris Stephens, presented a Bill to make provision about the rights of workers, including to negotiate pay and join trade unions and employee associations; to amend the definition of worker; to make provision about the employment rights of members of the armed forces; to make provision about employee representatives on company boards; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 45).
Corporate Homicide Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 to make provision about the offence of corporate homicide; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 46).
Public Advocate Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Maria Eagle, supported by Sir George Howarth, Derek Twigg, Alison McGovern, Dame Angela Eagle, Peter Dowd, Bill Esterson, Conor McGinn, Dan Carden, Ian Byrne, Paula Barker and Kim Johnson, presented a Bill to establish a public advocate to provide advice to, and act as data controller for, representatives of the deceased after major incidents.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 47).
Paternity (Leave and Pay) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Gareth Davies presented a Bill to extend eligibility for paternity leave and pay; to make provision for more flexibility in the timing of, and notice period for, paternity leave; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 48).
Goods Delivery Services Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Jamie Stone presented a Bill to regulate charges for, and the advertising of, goods delivery services; to make provision about transport infrastructure in remote areas to promote the use of goods delivery services; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 49).
Public Bodies (Representation from Devolved Nations) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Wendy Chamberlain presented a Bill to require the Government to have regard to the desirability of boards of public bodies including at least one person with relevant experience in at least one of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 50).
Education Employment (Accompaniment to Hearings) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Brendan Clarke-Smith, supported by Andrew Lewer, Andrew Percy, Caroline Ansell, Damian Hinds, Jonathan Gullis, Jim Shannon, Robert Halfon, Scott Benton, Selaine Saxby, Tim Loughton and Virginia Crosby, presented a Bill to provide that teachers and other education staff may choose to be accompanied to disciplinary or grievance hearings by a person other than a trade union representative or colleague; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 51).
Clean Air Targets (World Health Organization Guidelines) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Christine Jardine presented a Bill to require United Kingdom clean air targets to comply with World Health Organization guidelines; to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on that compliance; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 52).
Energy Pricing Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Martyn Day, supported by Margaret Ferrier, Marion Fellows, John Mc Nally, Ronnie Cowan and Douglas Chapman, presented a Bill to prohibit the practice of offering preferential energy tariffs to new customers compared to existing customers; to place further restrictions on energy pricing; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 53).
Commercial Rent (Prohibition of Upward-Only Reviews) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Sarah Olney presented a Bill to prohibit the use of upward-only rent review clauses in commercial rent agreements; to nullify existing such clauses; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 54).
City of Bradford (Referendum on Shipley and Keighley)Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Philip Davies, supported by Robbie Moore, presented a Bill to make provision for a district-wide referendum in the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council area on the continued inclusion of the areas covered by the Shipley and Keighley parliamentary constituencies in that district; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 55).
Wellbeing of Future Generations (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Simon Fell presented a Bill to make provision for a public consultation to inform a set of national wellbeing goals; to require public bodies to act in pursuit of the United Kingdom’s environmental, social, economic and cultural wellbeing by meeting wellbeing objectives, publishing future generations impact assessments and accounting for preventative spending; to establish a futures and forecasting report; to establish a Commission for Future Generations for the United Kingdom; to extend the duty of the Office of Budget Responsibility to consider wellbeing and the future generations principle in their work; to add onto a Minister in each government department’s portfolio a duty to promote the future generations principle across government policy; to establish a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Future Generations; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 56).
Conversion Therapy (Prohibition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Wera Hobhouse presented a Bill to prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity conversion therapy; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 57).
Pedicabs (London) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Nickie Aiken, supported by Felicity Buchan, Florence Eshalomi, David Simmonds and Ms Karen Buck, presented a Bill to provide for the regulation of the carrying of passengers in Greater London by pedal cycles and power-assisted pedal cycles for hire or reward; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 58).
Employment (Caring Leave) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Jack Brereton presented a Bill to give employees who are unpaid carers the right to one week’s unpaid leave for caring purposes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 59).
Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Layla Moran, supported by Ed Davey, Stephen Farry, Sarah Champion, Andy Slaughter, Alyn Smith, Caroline Lucas and Claire Hanna, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the recognition of the State of Palestine.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 60).
Climate and Ecology Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Caroline Lucas, supported by Barry Gardiner, Alan Brown, Ed Davey, Liz Saville Roberts, Claire Hanna, Stephen Farry, Clive Lewis, Alex Sobel, Brendan O’Hara, Sarah Olney and Ben Lake, presented a Bill to require the United Kingdom to achieve climate and nature targets; to give the Secretary of State a duty to implement a strategy to achieve those targets; to establish a Climate and Nature Assembly to advise the Secretary of State in creating that strategy; to give duties to the Committee on Climate Change and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee regarding the strategy and targets; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 61).
Non-Disclosure Agreements Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Mrs Maria Miller presented a Bill to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 62).
Tips Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Dean Russell presented a Bill to prohibit employers retaining tips and gratuities intended for staff; to make provision about the division of tips and gratuities between staff; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 63).
Education (16 to 19 Academies) (Religious Character)Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Scott Benton presented a Bill to permit 16 to 19 academies to have a designated religious character; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 64).
Kinship Care (Parental Leave) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Katherine Fletcher presented a Bill to make provision about parental leave for kinship carers who take on responsibility for children whose parents are unable to care for them; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 65).
Miscarriage Leave Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Angela Crawley presented a Bill to make provision for paid leave for people who have experienced miscarriage.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 66).
Crown Estate (Devolution to Wales) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Liz Saville Roberts, supported by Hywel Williams and Ben Lake, presented a Bill to devolve management of the Crown Estate and its assets in Wales to the Welsh Government; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 67).
Electric Vehicle Charging Points (New Buildings) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Felicity Buchan presented a Bill to make provision about electric vehicle charging points in new buildings; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 68).
Electoral Commission (Abolition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to abolish the Electoral Commission; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 69).
Hospitals (Parking Charges and Business Rates) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to prohibit charging for car parking at NHS Hospitals for patients and visitors; to make provision for NHS Hospitals to be exempt from business rates; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 70).
Human Trafficking (Child Protection) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision for the creation of secure safe houses for children that have been subject to human trafficking; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 71).
General Election (Leaders’ Debates) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to set up a commission to make arrangements for debates between leaders of political parties during a General Election; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 72).
Homeless People (Current Accounts) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to require banks to provide current accounts for homeless people seeking work; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 73).
Electoral Candidates (Age) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to allow a person who is age 18 or older on the day of a parliamentary or local election to stand as candidate; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 74).
Prime Minister (Accountability to House of Commons) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to impose duties on the Prime Minister relating to accountability to the House of Commons; to require the Prime Minister to be available to answer questions in that House on at least two occasions during a sitting week except in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 75).
Voter Registration Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to prohibit persons from being registered to vote in Parliamentary elections at more than one address; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 76).
North Northamptonshire (Urgent Care Facilities) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision about the restructuring of urgent care facilities in North Northamptonshire; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 77).
Business of the House Commission Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to create a Business of the House Commission to regulate the timetabling of business in the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 78).
Asylum Seekers (Return to Safe Countries) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to require asylum seekers who have arrived in the United Kingdom from a safe country to be immediately returned to that country; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 79).
BBC Licence Fee (Abolition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to abolish the BBC licence fee and make the BBC a subscription service; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 80).
Human Trafficking (Sentencing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision about penalties for human trafficking offences.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 81).
Leader of the House of Commons (Election) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to amend the House of Commons Administration Act 1978 to provide that the Prime Minister may only nominate as Leader of the House of Commons a Member of that House who is from the governing party and is elected by a system in which all Members of the House of Commons may participate; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 82).
Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to amend retained EU law relating to compulsory insurance for the use of motor vehicles; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 83).
Consumer Pricing Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to prohibit the practice of offering preferential pricing to new customers compared to existing customers; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 84).
Broadcasting (Listed Sporting Events) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to expand the list of sporting events that must be made available for broadcast by free-to-air television channels; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 85).
Puppy Import (Prohibition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to prohibit the import of young puppies; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 86).
Employment (Application Requirements) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to regulate the use of minimum qualification or experience requirements in job applications; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 87).
Public Sector Website Impersonation Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to create an offence of impersonating a public sector website for the purpose of collecting payment or personal data; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 88).
Hunting Trophy Import (Prohibition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to prohibit the import of wild animal specimens derived from trophy hunting; and for connected purposes..
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 89).
Armenian Genocide (Recognition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to require Her Majesty’s Government to formally recognise the Armenian genocide of 1915-16.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 90).
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to amend the House of Lords Act 1999 so as to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary peers.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 91).
Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to make provision about Parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under that Act; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 92).
Caravan Site Licensing (Exemptions of Motor Homes) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt motor homes from caravan site licensing requirements; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 93).
NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision about arranging alternative non-NHS England treatment for patients who have waited for more than one year for hospital treatment; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 94).
Channel 4 (Privatisation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for the privatisation of Channel 4; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 95).
British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for the privatisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 96).
Children’s Clothing (Value Added Tax) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to extend the definition of children’s clothing for the purposes of exemption from VAT; to extend the VAT exemption to further categories of school uniform; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 97).
BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to decriminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee by persons aged over seventy five; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 98).
Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require a Regulatory Impact Assessment to be published for all primary and secondary legislation introduced by the Government; to make provision for associated sanctions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 99).
Barnett Formula (Replacement) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report to Parliament on proposals to replace the Barnett Formula used to calculate adjustments to public expenditure allocated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with a statutory scheme for the allocation of resources based on an assessment of relative needs; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 100).
NHS (Prohibition of Data Transfer) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to prohibit the transfer of personal data by the NHS without the authority of the data subject; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 101).
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the Mobile Homes Act 1983; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 102).
Rule of Law (Enforcement by Public Authorities) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require public authorities to exercise their statutory powers to investigate and take enforcement action for breaches of the law; to make provision for sanctions for failing to take such action; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 February 2022 , and to be printed (Bill 103).
Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)s
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to create offences in respect of persons who have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 104).
National Health Service Co-Funding and Co-Payment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for co-funding and for the extension of co-payment for NHS services in England; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 105).
Caravan Sites Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the requirements for caravan site licence applications made under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 106).
Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to limit exit payments made by some public sector organisations to employees; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 107).
Green Belt (Protection) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to establish a national register of Green Belt land in England; to restrict the ability of local authorities to de-designate Green Belt land; to make provision about future development of de-designated Green Belt land and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 108).
Workers (Employment Security and Definition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Martin Docherty-Hughes, supported by Chris Stephens, presented a Bill to make provision about employment security and the rights of workers; to amend the definition of worker; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 109).
Workers (Rights and Definition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision about workers’ rights; to amend the definition of worker; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 110).
Full Employment Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to place a duty on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pursue a policy of full employment; to make associated provision for an employment guarantee scheme for benefit claimants who have been unemployed and looking for work for longer than six months; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 111).
Health and Safety at Work Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to make provision about civil liability for breaches of health and safety duties, and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 112).
Asylum Seekers (Accommodation Eviction Procedures) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for asylum seekers to challenge the proportionality of a proposed eviction from accommodation before an independent court or tribunal; to establish asylum seeker accommodation eviction procedures for public authorities; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 113).
Disability Benefit Assessments (Recording) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that applicants for Disability Benefit are given the option of their eligibility assessment being audio-recorded; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 114).
Benefit Sanctions (Warnings) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for warnings to be given to benefit claimants before they are given sanctions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 115).
Universal Credit Sanctions (Zero Hours Contracts) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Welfare Reform Act 2012 to provide that a Universal Credit claimant may not be sanctioned for refusing work on a zero hours contract; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 116).
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Powers) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to grant powers to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to identify and investigate systemic problems in the benefits system and make associated recommendations to the Secretary of State; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 117).
Under-Occupancy Penalty (Report) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of repealing those provisions of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 which provide for persons to be paid reduced rates of housing benefit or universal credit because their accommodation is deemed to be under-occupied.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 118).
Social Security Benefits (Healthy Eating) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish annual calculations of the benefit and tax credit rates that would be required for a representative household to afford to buy meals in accordance with the Eatwell Guide to eating healthily; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 119).
Housing Standards (Refugees and Asylum Seekers) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for national minimum standards in accommodation offered to refugees and asylum seekers; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 120).
Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for granting permission to work to asylum seekers who have waited six months for a decision on their asylum application; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 121).
Evictions (Universal Credit) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to prevent the evictions of Universal Credit claimants in rent arrears; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 122).
Immigration (Health and Social Care Staff) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Christine Jardine presented a Bill to grant indefinite leave to remain to health and social care staff; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 123).
Intimate Images (Offences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mrs Maria Miller presented a Bill to create offences relating to the taking, making and sharing of intimate images without consent; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 124).
Pregnancy and Maternity (Redundancy Protection) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mrs Maria Miller, supported by Sally-Ann Hart, Nickie Aiken, Mrs Flick Drummond, Virginia Crosbie, Caroline Nokes, Karen Bradley, Angela Crawley, Sarah Champion, Jeremy Hunt and Stephen Timms, presented a Bill to prohibit redundancy during pregnancy and maternity leave and for six months after the end of the pregnancy or leave, except in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 125).
Workers (Rights) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Gavin Newlands, supported by Ian Blackford, Chris Stephens, Mhairi Black, Kirsten Oswald, Brendan O’Hara, David Linden, Drew Hendry, Alan Brown, Alison Thewliss, Amy Callaghan and Owen Thompson, presented a Bill to make provision about workers’ rights; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 126).
Workers (Rights and Definition) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Angela Crawley presented a Bill to make provision about workers’ rights; to amend the definition of worker; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 127).
Workers (Rights) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Anum Qaisar-Javed, supported by Ian Blackford, Gavin Newlands, Chris Stephens, Kirsten Oswald, David Linden, Angela Crawley, Martin Docherty-Hughes, Martyn Day, Carol Monaghan, Angus Brendan MacNeil and Owen Thompson, presented a Bill to make provision about workers’ rights; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 128).
Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jim Shannon presented a Bill to require the installation of automated external defibrillators in public buildings, sporting facilities, schools, higher education and other education and skills facilities, and facilities that provide care to vulnerable people; and to make associated provision about training and signage.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 129).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will briefly suspend the House for two minutes in order to make preparations for the next item of business.
Opposition Day
Planning Decisions: Local Involvement
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House believes planning works best when developers and the local community work together to shape local areas and deliver necessary new homes; and therefore calls on the Government to protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.
It was only last month in the Queen’s Speech debate that we warned the Government that they would reap a political whirlwind if they went ahead with their plans to silence communities and hand control over planning to developers. They felt the first blasts of that whirlwind in Chesham and Amersham, but it will not finish there because it is fair to say that the Conservatives’ planning reforms are not popular with voters. That is not because voters are nimbys, as Ministers rather offensively like to brand them, but because residents rightly want and deserve a say over how their own neighbourhoods are developed.
Under the Conservatives’ proposals, planning decisions will be taken away from democratically elected local councils and handed to development boards appointed by Ministers in Whitehall. These new quangos will help zone areas for development. Residents living in areas zoned for growth will find that they no longer have an automatic right to object to individual planning applications on their own doorsteps, no right to object to oversized blocks at the end of the street, no right to object to concreting over precious green space, and no right to object to new developments that overburden local infrastructure such as roads, doctors’ surgeries, schools or public transport.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I can quite understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to make a doomed bid for prosperous Tory voters in the south-east, but will he answer the question, on behalf of my children, young professional people working in London and the south-east: how on earth are they going to get on to the property market?
Steve Reed
The point the right hon. Gentleman makes is important. If he listens to my speech, he will hear me go on to talk about the 1 million consented homes that have not been built, which all those people could be living in if the Government would address that issue, rather than tackle the wrong issue, which they seem intent on doing, despite the backlash from their own political supporters against their proposals.
Under the Government’s proposals, residents will be gagged from speaking out, while developers will be set loose to bulldoze and concrete over local neighbourhoods pretty much at will. These proposals are nothing less than a developers’ charter that silences local communities, so developers can exploit local communities for profit.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the Government’s proposals. I think that he should bring them here and table them in this House, because all that we on the Government Benches have seen is a White Paper. We have not seen the Government’s response to that. Perhaps he has.
Steve Reed
It is pretty fair to say that a White Paper is Government proposals.
Why would the Government do something so desperately unpopular with their own voters, let alone with all the rest of voters? Well, since the current Prime Minister took office, donations to the Conservative party from major developers have increased by nearly 400%, according to analysis by openDemocracy. That money was an investment in expectation of a return, and here it is. The Prime Minister is paying back developers by selling out communities.
The Government’s proposals have been criticised by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Local Government Association, the Countryside Alliance and even the National Trust, but they have also been criticised by Members on the Government’s own Benches. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), a distinguished former Prime Minister, says:
“We need to ensure that that planning system sees the right number of homes being built in the right places. But we will not do that by removing local democracy, cutting the number of affordable homes that are built and building over rural areas. Yet that is exactly what these reforms will lead to.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 1051.]
That was the former Conservative Prime Minister speaking about the Government’s proposals. The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) says:
“Increasingly, it looks like the Government are not interested in what local people think at all. I urge the Minister to think about the impact of showing contempt for local democracy.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 1063.]
That was a senior member of the Housing Minister’s own party accusing the Government of showing contempt for local democracy. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) puts it like this—
“instead of taking away local powers, the Government should be looking at the number of planning permissions given that do not result in houses being built.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 1066.]
That is precisely the point I made in response to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). They are all right—they are all absolutely right.
I used to co-chair the biggest regeneration strategy board in the country—it delivered over 5,000 new homes—and that experience showed me that regeneration works best in everyone’s interests when it is a strong partnership between councils, communities and developers. That is how we get new homes built where people need them. The best developers know that, too. They do not want to build in the teeth of local opposition; they want to work with the local community and build something that enhances the local area for the existing community as well as for newcomers and those who need a home.
There are real problems with the current planning system that need to be addressed. We are not building the number of new homes the country needs. The last Labour Government increased home ownership by 1 million people. The current Conservative Government, sadly, have reduced it by 800,000 people, and they have cut the amount of social housing being built by 80%. However, the problem with getting homes built is not the planning process; it is developers who do not build the homes once they have consent. The Government are refusing to tackle the real problem. Nine in 10 planning applications get approval, but according to the Conservative-led Local Government Association, over 1.1 million homes that received consent in the past decade have still not been built, which is over half of all homes approved by council planning departments.
One of the problems causing this situation is land banking. That is where a developer gets approval for an application to build new homes, but instead of building, waits for land values to rise so they can sell it on without having laid a single brick. Instead of a planning Bill that does nothing about this, we need new measures that incentivise developers to get these shovel-ready homes built more quickly, and since the Government have done nothing at all about this, we will bring forward legislation for the House to vote on.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that this is not about the number of houses, but about the whole infrastructure around housing applications —accessibility, connectivity, access to schools and green places? The planning system is not just about building the number of houses, but about building them in the right places with the right infrastructure around them.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and certainly new homes need appropriate infrastructure to allow communities to thrive. That is one of the important reasons why local communities need a say over planning and development—a say that the Government are intent, unfortunately, on taking away from them. Regeneration cannot be something that is done to communities; it must be done with them. The current planning system does not work well enough, that is for sure, but the answer cannot be to carve local communities out of a say over their own neighbourhoods. It should be to incentivise developers to build the homes they have approval for.
The motion before the House is a modest proposal that simply invites Members to vote for what many Government Members say they believe in. It simply asks the Government to guarantee that residents will retain the right to a hearing over individual developments on their own streets, in their own neighbourhood or on their own local green space. We are asking for nothing more than what Government Members have already said they want. Their own Front Benchers clearly are not listening to them, so here is the chance for them to make the point more clearly. Members’ constituents would be astonished if their MP failed to vote for something that they say they support, so I urge Members in all parts of the House to come together this afternoon. Let us work cross party, across the Chamber, and take a stand for the communities that we all represent.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak in this debate and the next debate this afternoon, so we will have to begin with a time limit of three minutes, which will be immediately imposed.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I am sure that the entire House enjoyed the performance of the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), the shadow Housing Minister, although I have to say that the closest he came to accuracy, Madam Deputy Speaker, was when he addressed you as Madam Deputy Speaker. However, at least he gives me the opportunity to put the case for a transparent, engaging and modern planning system that will help to deliver the homes that we need, to give everyone in our country the chance, if they want to, to get on to the housing ladder.
Our planning reforms are a sensible set of proposals to address the failures of the English planning system, which was conceived almost three quarters of a century ago and which many accept is now too slow, too difficult to navigate and too off-putting for the broad mass of communities. Right now, it can take up to seven years to adopt a local plan. Only 41% of local authorities have an up-to-date plan and some have no plan at all, all of which puts much of their communities at risk of speculative development.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Talking about councils that have no plan, I refer the House to my Labour-led council in Bury. Does the Minister agree that while we want democratic engagement, the worst thing possible is to have that engagement and not listen to the people, as my council is doing to the over 10,000 people who want protection of the green belt, every single one of whom is being ignored?
Christopher Pincher
I hope that my hon. Friend’s council does listen, and I also hope, for that matter, that the Greater Manchester Mayor listens. We have given them £75 million of public funds to invest in brownfield remediation. Let him use it effectively for his constituents in Greater Manchester.
Individual planning applications can take up to five years to determine, in addition to plans potentially taking up to seven years. The system is not fast enough and it is not consistent, nor is it clear or engaging enough. We are committed to improving the system, because our reforms will protect our valuable and beautiful green spaces, with vital protections for the green belt.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Government’s Environment Bill rightly protects environmental net gain. How can that possibly work within a zonal planning system?
Christopher Pincher
We are determined to bake in biodiversity net gain of 10%. We are determined to look at recovery networks and also to ensure that we introduce a future homes standard. We will make sure that, baked into these plans and beyond, the environment comes first and foremost. I shall say a few more words about that in a moment.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Will the Minister allow me to intervene?
Christopher Pincher
I will allow my hon. Friend very briefly.
Mr Baker
In Wycombe, in the especially treasured area of Gomm Valley, there was public consent for a plan to put in some houses that actually increased environmental amenity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public need the opportunity to say no, but the incentives to say yes, because they can see the gains for their community? May I also invite him to look at plans that I put forward in 2014 that would do just that?
Christopher Pincher
We certainly want communities to have much greater involvement in planning, and I will certainly look at the proposals that my hon. Friend put forward.
Our proposals will deliver a simpler, faster, more transparent process, giving communities and builders, especially small builders, certainty over what development is permitted through clear land allocations in local plans. They will ensure that developers contribute a fair share to funding affordable housing and infrastructure through a new, more predictable, more transparent and faster infrastructure levy that will ensure that communities get the affordable homes—and the schools, clinics and roundabouts to support those homes—when they need them. And they will further empower local people to set standards for beauty and design through local design codes, putting beauty at the heart of the planning system for the first time. The proposals will bring a slow and cumbersome paper-based system into the digital age, with interactive maps at our fingertips and involving far more local people than at present.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
One of the concerns in my constituency is flooding, and as the Minister knows, the Flood Re insurance programme is suitable only for homes that were built before 2009. Given that all these new homes are being proposed, what reassurance can he give people that they will still be able to have affordable flood insurance to go with them?
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Lady is quite right, and we will look at the flooding issue as we further develop our proposals and bring them to Parliament. I recognise that this is a challenge; it is a challenge in my own constituency too.
One poll showed that 69% of people had no knowledge of or connection with local plan making. That is simply not good enough, and we believe that there is an appetite for change. Let me briefly come to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Croydon North. We all know that he is trying to make a name for himself—quite some name—and we also know that he has one or two little hobby-horses. But like so many hobby-horses, they can turn into an obsession. He started out quite normally with an interest in planning and its rules, but quickly—all too quickly—it went downhill. He conceives himself as some sort of latter-day witchfinder general, a chief of the inquisition constantly in search of some heresy under every stone, and finding plots and conspiracy under every brick. I fear that his latest, albeit short, outpouring shows that the fantasy has gone a little too far. In just a few minutes, he has gone from acting like Tomás de Torquemada to being like David Icke. How long will it be before he runs off and jumps into his turquoise tracksuit and starts telling everybody that the world is run by lizards and that he is the godhead?
In the wording of the Opposition’s proposals, are they now saying that they oppose local development orders, which allow certain types of development to go ahead without a specific planning application, even though they introduced that legislation themselves in 2004? Are they also opposed to neighbourhood development orders, which also allow certain developments without specific planning applications? It sounds as if they are. In fact, it sounds as if they do not really know what they are talking about and that they do not have any firm, sound policies at all, which his predecessor, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), admitted in a private briefing.
I make this offer to the hon. Gentleman: come in to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, talk to our officials and let them explain how the current planning system rules for Ministers work. In that way, he can see for himself how carefully it is controlled. He may not take any notice—in fact, I suspect he probably will not—but at least he will have had the chance to listen, to ask some questions and possibly to learn.
There has been a good deal of discussion, in the House and beyond, about community engagement. I reassure the House that our proposals will not diminish the ability of local communities to take part in the planning process. On the contrary, they are designed to give communities more of a say, not less, with better information, easier means of taking part and, crucially, a clearer voice when it can make a real difference in the planning process.
Under our present planning system, when asked what they think of their local area, there are twice as many people who say that it has got worse as those who say it has got better. Under our present planning system, just 1% of the local population get involved in local plan making, and just 2% or 3% of local people get involved in discussions about local developments. That is very few—too few—yet with so little engagement, and often after months or years of tortuous wrangling, nine in every 10 planning applications end up being approved anyway. I do not think that those facts suggest a system that is really very engaging, still less one that is truly empowering. We can do better, and we will.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister therefore listen to local communities who want local occupancy restrictions so that they can live in local homes, as opposed to those homes becoming holiday lets and Airbnbs?
Christopher Pincher
We are certainly open to the proposition; we are taking it forward anyway with our proposition for first homes. However, I suggest to the hon. Lady that it would be very helpful if, as I know she believes should happen, her own local authority got a plan in place to protect its community—her community—from speculative developments.
Our proposals will increase opportunities for local people to be involved in local plans, using a map-based system that will show clearly what building is proposed and where, what it will be, what it will look like and what kind of infrastructure will support it—real involvement, including in the development of local design codes. Through our new office for place, drawing on Britain’s world-class design expertise, communities and their local councils will be empowered to set local design standards, putting design and beauty at the heart of our planning system.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the consultation people should have a say on the height of buildings in their local community, so that they do not live under the shadow of tall buildings when they do not wish to?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who is a doughty campaigner for his constituents. As he will know, we introduced a tall buildings policy in London in the teeth of opposition from the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. We are certainly open to the prospect of such policies more broadly, beyond London; I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about that policy opportunity.
Our plans will make it easier for local people to really influence the plan in their community and have their say on the future development of their local area, including the standards of design that builders must adhere to.
Christian Wakeford
The Minister is being generous in giving way. We have talked about the huge importance of communities engaging in the planning process and of having a local plan, but does he agree that the most engaging way to get residents involved in the planning process is by rolling out more neighbourhood plans, so that the process can be devolved to the most local areas possible, whether they are areas of towns or villages?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising neighbourhood plans. We are keen to advance the opportunities that they afford to their communities. We are very conscious that they tend to occur in the south of our country or in the more rural parts; we are determined to roll them out into places further north and places that are much more urban, so that those communities too can benefit from the opportunity.
Our proposals will transform how planning and plan-making is done, taking us from an era of planning notifications on lamp posts to digital, interactive services enabling prop-tech companies to develop more engaging ways to visualise and communicate planning information, in turn improving everyone’s overall understanding of what is happening and where. Plans will be more accessible, presented in new, visual map-based formats based on machine-readable data accompanied by clear site-specific requirements. As I say, communities will be engaged at the earliest stages of the plan-making process to ensure that their views are fully reflected. To make sure that local authorities have the tools that they need, we promise a holistic review of council planning resources, because we want councils and their officers to have the scope and the skills to plan strategically for their communities, involving communities much more closely in their plan-making, the design of their communities, and the infrastructure to support them.
Andrew Griffith
Fundamental to building a consensus around the new planning structure will be making better use of brownfield land and, in particular, investing in brownfield land registers. Land is our most precious commodity. We are all into recycling. Recycling our land must be the way to go. Does the Minister agree?
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That policy point is enshrined in the national planning policy framework and we will take it further in our proposals. The £400 million of brownfield regeneration funding that has been made available by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, added to by a further £100 million, is all designed to add teeth to our determination to develop on brownfield first.
There will be a continuing role for the existing planning application process. As I have said before in this House, that system does not go away. Where applicants wish to vary from the local plan, they will need to make a full planning application in the usual way. Even where the broad principle of development is agreed through the plan, all the details will still need to be consulted on with communities and statutory consultees, and approved by officers or committees where appropriate. We are also looking closely at enforcement rules to ensure that where, such as in growth sites, the local authority has set up clear rules about development—which, by the way, will have had community consultation and agreement in the local plan—the authority has the tools and the ability to monitor and enforce those rules as development is built out.
The hon. Member for Croydon North mentioned build-out. We are very conscious that Oliver Letwin and, before him, Kate Barker produced a series of reports about build-out. We reckon that introducing this new, speedier process, which will aid small and medium-sized enterprises, will make it easier to bring forward plots of land with planning application for development much more quickly, and there will be more competition among developers. If people know that there are some up-front rules that they have to adhere to in order to build, there will be no necessity to land-bank. We are also very conscious of the points that have been made by many Members across the House, and those beyond it, about the importance of getting permissions built out, so we are looking closely at ways in which we can incentivise developers to continue to work closely with local authorities and with landowners to make sure that permissions are built out as rapidly as possible.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend recognises the issue of build-out rate, but he has also referred several times to the risks of speculative development. The risk is that if you do not deliver, you lose control of your plan and are therefore subject to speculative development, which no one wants because such developments are sited in places that have not been supported at all. Does he agree that one of the upsides of the planning system must be to give communities certainty about the number of homes going forward, lessening the risk of losing the five-year land supply by having speculative development?
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend, who is an expert in this field, is absolutely right. As I said in my earlier remarks, too few councils have up-to-date local plans. That leaves their communities at risk of speculative development. By implementing our proposals, which will ensure that local authorities must have local plans in place within 30 months, we will help protect communities such as his and such as all of ours against speculative development.
Our reforms will also leave an inheritance of strengthening and enhancing our environment. They will mean that environmental assets are better protected, more green spaces are provided, more sustainable development is supported, and new homes will be, as I said earlier, much more energy-efficient. Our planning reforms will support the implementation of the 10% biodiversity net gain enshrined in the Environment Bill and capitalise on the potential of local nature recovery networks. We will also make the system clearer and more accountable.
Our reforms also include measures to protect and enhance the green belt, taking into account its fundamental importance when considering the constraints that areas face. We have made it clear in the NPPF, through Government investment and through our permitted development rights reforms, and we make it clear once again in our wider planning reforms: brownfield development must come first.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Under the current system, too often local planning officers advise that unless green belt is released, local plans will be subject to challenge and will lose once they are referred to the inspector. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that where local authorities can demonstrate that they have enough brownfield sites available for development for their own assessed housing need, the green belt in areas such as Dudley South will be protected?
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend must have seen my speech, because I am about to move on to the matter of the green belt, which we will continue to protect, because our policy has not changed. We made a manifesto commitment to the green belt as a means of protecting against urban sprawl, and we mean to keep it. Local authorities should not develop on the green belt, save in exceptional circumstances, and local plan making should recognise the green belt as a constraint on numbers, as my letter to Members of Parliament in December last year made clear. For the record, we will not be accepting the recommendation in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report for a wholesale review of the green belt.
These measures and these commitments are important. They are a very important part of delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment to create the most ambitious environmental programme of any country in the world. We are clear that to help make home ownership affordable for more people, we need to deliver more homes, because by the age of 30, those born between 1981 and 2000 are half as likely to be homeowners as those born between 1946 and 1965. We need to take bold steps to provide enough homes in the places where people and communities need them.
At the last general election, we made a commitment to deliver the homes that the country needs—better-quality homes, of different designs and different tenures in the right places all around the country where they are needed. We have promised to extend the chance of home ownership to all who want it, and in any poll one cares to conduct, more than 80% of people—young people, less affluent people—will say that they want the opportunity to own their own home. They aspire to a stake in their community and their country, yet for far too many people that aspiration—
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Lady says it is painful. Yes, it is very painful for those people who cannot get on the property ladder. It seems an impossible dream, because in places around our country, the average price of a home is many multiples of average earnings—in some places, it is 12 times the average wage. In other places there are just not enough appropriate homes for older people who want to step down the property ladder into more suitable individual accommodation.
If we are to keep our promise to those who aspire to own their own home or move into the right home, we must not only provide the right economic framework in which skills and jobs can thrive, and continue to deliver initiatives such as Help to Buy, right to buy and First Homes, which give people a leg up on the ladder, but we must deliver the homes people need. That is what we are doing.
We have delivered 1.8 million new homes since 2010. In 2020 we delivered 244,000 new homes across our country. We have an ambition to build—as do the Liberal Democrats, apparently—300,000 homes each year by the middle of this decade. That is in stark contrast to Labour’s lamentable failure to provide the homes this country needs. Under Labour, housebuilding fell to its lowest rate since the 1920s and the days when Ramsay MacDonald was the party leader—by modern standards he was quite popular. In London, Labour’s Sadiq Khan has built fewer than half the homes he promised, despite having an extra year in which to do it. In Labour-run Wales, so few council homes are being built that they could barely accommodate a Welsh rugby team.
We now have a new shadow Housing Secretary, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who opposes the delivery of almost any building proposed in her constituency—something of a niche approach to home making. In truth—Labour Members do not like this truth; they cannot handle it—Labour does not like people to own their own homes. Labour Members do not want people, especially young people, to get on the property ladder. They do not like aspiration, they do not like capitalism, and they do not want our people to aspire to or to be capitalists. Well, we have something to say to that and it begins with a B. We say “Bolshevism” to that. Indeed, Lord Mandelson, one of Labour’s more successful and less bolshy people, says the same. When he returned from Hartlepool a few weeks ago, he said:
“I can see that people are proud of what they have achieved,”
He said that people are aspirational, and that they are not sure they have achieved that with Labour—a damning indictment of that party.
By contrast, Conservative Members are proud of those people, and we will ensure that people like them across the country achieve their aspirations under this Government. This Government are determined to level up opportunity the length and breadth of this country. From Redruth to Redcar we are determined to ensure that people are not priced out of their local communities. We are determined to get them on the ladder, because that is what they want. Just a week or two ago Sam Legg, just 19 years of age from Asfordby in Leicestershire, became the 300,000th Help to Buyer. He said that he could not have got on the ladder without Help to Buy and the support of this Government. If people like Sam and Megan, and millions like them all around the country, want to get on the property ladder, we must address the housing challenge head-on.
We know that introducing wide-ranging reforms excites real passion. It is right that those reforms are properly scrutinised by the House, and they will be; we are keen to ensure that our proposals are well considered and reflect the interests of every community across the country. We strongly believe that a modernised, transparent, engaging planning system that delivers better outcomes for local democracy, the economy, the environment and housing in a better and faster way is a long overdue reform. As we emerge from the pandemic, now is the time to drive those reforms forward: giving communities a real say in development; creating more beautiful places; making the very best use of brownfield sites to regenerate our cities and town centres; extending opportunity and security for millions; and delivering the homes our country wants and needs.
While the Opposition sink back into their comfort zone, extolling sectional interest and chained to Corbynite dogma, we will build the homes the country needs. We will build them back better and stronger. We will make sure that the banner of aspiration flies here.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I have had to cut my speech down.
I welcome this motion, following the publication of the report by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. The Minister will know that my Adjournment debate was a foretaste of what my constituents have had to put up with and what the future holds if the Government proceed with the as yet unpublished White Paper.
The Government’s hopeless response is to exclude the public even more from the process, instead of improving processes now. It is a developers’ charter that is becoming the people’s nightmare. The Select Committee’s report included an interesting statistic on the planning process, stating on page 112:
“63% said they were not satisfied with their experience. 61% said they did not think that the planning process was fair.”
The Minister will know the story of Narrow Lane, but I have to repeat it. In Walsall, we had a plan. We had the site allocation document—a document on how the land will be used. There was extensive consultation and it was approved by the planning inspector in 2019. Without any notice or consultation, Walsall Council’s cabinet decided that Narrow Lane was to be the location for a Traveller transit site. The site is on a junction, so there is poor air quality and there have been a number of accidents, including one two weeks ago, when an elderly person was knocked over.
The council’s cabinet agreed on the location without even looking at the site allocation document or referring to it in the background papers, and that is what is going to happen under the Government’s proposals: they will say that they have had the consultation with the local plan, but there will be no further involvement with our constituents and councillors, and the Secretary of State will be free to decide what they want, without local involvement. Here is the warning: the decision maker can depart from the local plan. Our constituents will remain helpless under these hopeless proposals.
The Government say that this is about housing, but 1 million homes have been approved but not built. Some are built on floodplains, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) mentioned, and there is no mention of climate change. Why does the Minister not mandate that every new build should have solar panels on the roof? There are serious concerns about making planning changes.
My next point is about transparency and conflicts of interest.
Emma Hardy
I am sorry to intervene so early and thank my right hon. Friend for taking my intervention. My point was about not just building on floodplains, but the importance of having flood insurance for all the new homes that are not currently eligible for the Flood Re insurance scheme.
Valerie Vaz
I absolutely agree.
In our case, it was agreed in the SAD that the transit site would be placed on a site that was environmentally suitable, near to a settled community—everything to integrate that community—but it happened to be in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who used to be a councillor on Walsall Council. The portfolio holder used to work for him, but he now works for the Conservative party, registering his interest only days after the scrutiny committee meeting. Our legal advice said that there was bias, just as there was with the approval of the £1 billion Westferry Printworks in Tower Hamlets. The Secretary of State has already admitted that that was
“unlawful by reason of apparent bias.”
I have asked the Minister to investigate the earlier decision of Walsall Council’s cabinet. I ask him again: could he please do so? If he is serious about making changes, could he also mandate that every planning committee has a compulsory recorded vote for every decision that they make, as that would increase transparency and accountability?
In conclusion, we need more consultation, not less, including with all civic society and historical associations. The Town and Country Planning Association said:
“All of these reforms have a common theme of removing local voices from the process.”
Buildings and places do not exist without the people who breathe life into them, just as we have seen during the pandemic. I urge the Minister to listen to local people, give them back control and end the people’s nightmare.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). I have to say that I thought what happened to her in her party’s reshuffle was deeply unfair, because—and I say this gently—I do not think she was the problem at all.
There is a sense of déjà vu pervading our proceedings today. As repetition is not a cardinal sin in this House, I shall again make the points that I have made on umpteen occasions, whether in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall. Unusually, I will look at the wording of the motion as the basis of my speech, because who could possibly disagree with the sentiments expressed in it? The problem is that we agree with the principle, but politics gets in the way. I suppose it is an occupational hazard of being here, as, indeed, it is a hazard in the adversarial nature of the planning system.
If I may borrow the phrase “work together” from the motion, I see that very much epitomised by the concept of neighbourhood planning, which I want to see strengthened still further and support entirely. For those in High Lane, Marple, Marple Bridge, Mellor, Mill Brow and Compstall in my constituency, those processes are not happening quickly enough and are not strongly protected enough in law. It is a straightforward way to involve people in the system and to make them buy into it, as it were, so that they can accept the new homes that it is necessary to build.
I also borrow from the motion the phrase “necessary new homes”. Yes, but is the 300,000 target the issue? After all, parties seemed to agree with that in their manifestos. It is necessary, I venture to say, to end land banking, as a number of Members have touched on. Having a million or so units with permissions but that are not being built seems to be at the heart of the problem that we face. I look forward to the Minister bringing forward concrete proposals to, as he said, “incentivise” them, but if incentives do not work, we should, quite frankly, use the stick as well.
It is also necessary to continue to promote brownfield developments. This is a success story for the Government. In Stockport, for example, they told us that there was room for only 7,000 units on such sites, but the Government then mandated the council to provide that register and, lo and behold, that increased to 12,000, so that shows that progress is being made in that area.
We are not nimbys—that is not an accusation that should be thrown at those of us who might have some scepticism about some of the ideas that have ventured forth. Nor, indeed, are we bananas—that is, “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody”. What we want to see is a planning process—although some people might disagree—that involves and engages people and delivers the housing that we most certainly need.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg).
The planning system is already well rigged in developers’ favour. We put trust and faith in a democratic process that has been eroded in much of the country. In my constituency, there has been a significant amount of anger, upset and deep concern caused by the planning system, particularly with regard to a site that is being developed for myHermes. Although there were a number of consultations before land allocation, understandably the vast majority of people were not even aware that a potential allocation was taking place.
The Minister for Housing, the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), said in response to my written question on this issue that
“previous studies suggest that only a small proportion of the public tend to engage in local plan consultations.”
We all know that people tend only to become aware and engage when an application is made and when a site notice appears, but this causes real upset when people do then engage and seek to share their views at the application stage, only to be told that the decision about the site has already been made. At best, it leaves people feeling ignored. At worst, it leads to a feeling of total disenfranchisement from local democracy. This is not the fault of our local councils; it is the process.
Stephanie Peacock
No, I am going to make some progress. However, the councils and the planning committees take the blame. Planning works best when it is a partnership. We need the right types of homes in the right places. Of course we need investment and new jobs, but just leaving delivery to the market will not deliver partnership and will fundamentally fail to meet people’s needs. With the brownfield remediation fund devastated by the Tories and a soft-touch approach to land banking and speculation, the inevitable consequences of this policy will be a further loss of valued green spaces without local voices being heard.
The reality is that the planning process is not a democratic one; it is a legal one. However, this situation is due to become far, far worse. With these changes, the Government will be ripping out the only democratic element of the planning process. The proposals are nothing short of a developers’ charter. As has been stated, since the Prime Minister became leader of the Conservative party, donations to the Tories from developers have increased by 400%. With these proposals, the Prime Minister is paying them back by selling out our communities. Some of those developers have even seen their individual planning applications personally approved by the Secretary of State against his own Department’s advice.
There is a reason why there is so much opposition to the proposals. Their introduction would be the greatest shift in power to big developers in the history of this country. We need a fundamentally new approach, not more market control. We need democratic control. The Government’s proposals will not deliver that. The developers and donors will be delighted, but it is our communities who will pay the price.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
These were the words of Dickens:
“Home is a name, a word, it is a strong one; stronger than magician ever spoke, or spirit ever answered to, in the strongest conjuration.”
I want to speak briefly about demand, supply and ownership.
Homes form the heart of a property-owning democracy, one that Britons want and deserve. Ownership kindles individual fulfilment and communal wellbeing, as it fosters feelings of responsible pride. Through beautiful building, desired homes can allow people’s dreams to come true. Yet fewer people own homes now as a proportion of the total than did 20 years ago. That is not acceptable, because we know that most people do not want it that way. Every poll taken, as the Minister said, suggests that people want to become homeowners. Our job is to help to make that dream come true. Owning capital is the heart of capitalism and homeownership is a vital milestone to communal enfranchisement, but they must be beautiful homes.
I want to talk about supply, because the supply of housing is not the same as building homes in which people want to live. It is right and proper that we should be inspired by the best of what has been. We should be no less ambitious for the next generation than Wren was when London was rebuilt after the great fire, or Pugin was when he designed the very place in which we sit. Let us be imaginative. Let us accept that all we build should inspire, should enthral. That is what the planning system needs to deliver: no more identikit soulless housing estates bolted on to the edge of settlements, but better, beautiful homes—homes of which we can be proud.
Let me say a word about demand. The problem is that we simply do not have enough houses to meet demand. That demand grows largely because of population change. The population is growing at an astonishing pace: it has increased by 6.6 million since 2001 and is expected to grow by a further 5.6 million by 2041. The problem of population growth is at the heart of this debate. Concerns about density, housing numbers and ecology can all be traced back to the fact that to house the expected 2041 increase in population, we will probably have to build a settlement greater than the size of Bedfordshire. That really cannot be reconciled with the current planning system. We need to control population by looking at the biggest single driver, which is net migration—it is not the time or place to discuss that here, because I have only 11 seconds left—so let me end by saying this. This planning reform can be regenerative and groundbreaking, but it will only be so if it has communities at its heart and beauty as its ambition.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Planning has a vital role to play in our response to the climate emergency, both in achieving net zero and in adapting to climate change which is already happening. It is critical in delivering the homes we need to end the housing crisis, and in delivering the infrastructure and services to support new residents. It is vital for economic development and the delivery of green jobs. At its most basic level, planning should be a framework for fairness. It should ensure that new development delivers what communities need, not what makes the most profit, and it should safeguard the things that they hold most dear. There is no doubt that our planning system is in need of reform, but this White Paper takes entirely the wrong approach. Locking communities and local councillors out of planning decisions on individual applications will not deliver more homes, better design, or zero-carbon development. It will create a developers’ charter for identikit places. Deregulating the planning system by expanding permitted development rights will mean that instead of protecting character and quality in our town and city centres they will be eroded, as shopping streets are pepper-potted with homes, and roofscapes become a mess of ad hoc two-storey extensions.
Instead of treating the planning system as inconvenient red tape to be swept away as much as possible, the Government should be seeking to make it fit for purpose for the challenges of the 21st century. From 2010, the Tory-Lib Dem coalition Government embarked on a bonfire of planning regulations, which removed many of the design standards intended to ensure low-carbon development, including the zero-carbon homes programme. That has resulted in more than a decade of lost time to deliver net zero, a decade in which new homes have continued to be built, which will now need to be retrofitted in the future when they could have been built to zero-carbon standards in the first place. The Government have been utterly negligent on low-carbon building, and making the superficial and subjective concept of beauty the core principle of their planning policy will do little to address that.
Our planning system cannot deliver the genuinely affordable social housing that we need without land reform. In the last Parliament, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to reform the Land Compensation Act 1961 to enable local authorities to purchase land for housing at an affordable price without having to pay enormous windfall profits to landowners. Such reforms would enable councils and housing associations to build the homes that our communities need without having to cross-subsidise them with private development.
In the short time that is left available to me, I urge the Government to think again and place climate change at the heart of the system, people at the heart of the process, zero carbon and genuinely affordable homes as the key priority for delivery, and land reform to stop windfall profits as a core concern.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate today, not just because there are local issues that I wish to raise, but because planning policy reveals so much about who really has a say in deciding the face and quality of our towns and country in the years and decades to come.
There are natural tensions between residents, conservationists, people seeking new homes and the developers who stand to benefit. A fair planning system gives them all an opportunity to present their cases and to be heard equally so that provision can be made without exploiting or spoiling our landscape and heritage. If this developer’s charter becomes law, there would be no way for local people to object to bad or inappropriate proposals, such as those to build over Peel Hall in Warrington despite the valiant campaigning efforts over the past three decades by residents against proposals from Satnam. This vital green lung in our communities is beloved by residents and is a vital part of our area’s biodiversity.
Working with Warrington’s Labour council, I am looking at ways to make nature more accessible to residents, including bringing together the green spaces and nature reserves that ring the town through connecting cycleways and pathways to create a Warrington orbital park, and working with volunteers to clean up these spaces. I am also working with our vibrant creative sector to bring sculptures and other artworks to the parks to celebrate our local culture and heritage. All of this is now under threat.
The Government’s White Paper has not only nothing on the natural environment, but almost nothing on affordable rent or on net zero. It does not address wider infrastructure such as transport, retail or leisure, and simply puts developers in the driving seat of their cranes and diggers and gives them a green light to do what they like. I am not opposed to house building. Indeed, probably the largest volume of casework that I deal with relates to the lack of appropriate housing, especially affordable housing for large families and for constituents of my age looking to get on to the housing ladder.
Valerie Vaz
It is not just about houses, though, is it? It is about decent quality houses and homes.
Charlotte Nichols
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. We need more three and four-bedroom family properties in Warrington where people can have a good standard of living, but what developers want is to convert or build endless one-bedroom flats where they benefit from their highest profit margins while delivering the least for families and our community.
Communities should have more say on planning and development. They know what is needed locally, and systems work better where people are working together rather than being shut out. So why have the Government put forward such obviously terrible proposals, angering their Back Benchers and even their own voters, as we saw in the by-election last week? Could it be connected to the fact that developer donations to the Tory party have risen 400% since the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) became leader of his party? Scarcely a week goes by without stories emerging of the Communities Secretary weighing in on behalf of developers who have made big donations to him or the Conservatives.
We can see the threat to our green and pleasant land from these greedy, present plans. I suspect that the Government would like to drop these proposals, but that is difficult when they have been bought. If Ministers press ahead with this developers’ charter, they must know that it will be resisted in the country, even in areas they have taken for granted. I call on them to listen to their constituents, not their paymasters, and to drop the proposals.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The architecture of York is stunning. It is why 8 million people from across the world come to wind their way through medieval streets and snickets to stand before the towering Gothic architecture of York Minster in awe. The archaeology is rich and sensitive, and must be respected. It is the pride of our city that, beyond the walls, York’s housing, inspired by the Rowntree family to address poverty and inequality, set the blueprint for social housing, paving the way for the 1919 housing Act, with well proportioned family homes with gardens, first in New Earswick and then in Tang Hall.
Today, a city of inequality, where poverty once again suppresses the dreams of my constituents, is faced with a housing crisis. The low-waged economy means extortionate house prices, which are about to take a far more damaging turn through the alien York Central development plans. The developers’ charter that we are debating today is a fast track to procuring a city of luxury apartments that no one from York can afford. It will simply drive local house prices up, skewing the local economy and pushing local people further from their roots.
Those investors, who will spend over £500,000 a unit, will be the new commuters or, as we are seeing in other new developments, will turn their homes into holiday lets, Airbnbs and second homes. Homes England recognises that this development could turn York into a hen and stag party city, where local people fear to go. There is nothing beautiful about that—or about local families living in damp, overcrowded homes, where private landlords are fleecing them for every penny they have, or about the council failing to house people adequately. The plans also lack local consultation and scrutiny.
Let us contrast that with Labour’s vision of wanting to meet housing need with good-quality, sustainable homes, with gardens for families to enjoy, to meet local need and to rekindle the investment that the Rowntree family made. We want a family-friendly city, with facilities for children to play and for local people to enjoy. We want York Central to focus on jobs, to lift the low wages of York and give everyone a hope of a better, fairer future. Instead of more cars congesting our streets, we want cleaner air and better transport, cycling and walking.
This site will be the ruining of York unless it is forced to change direction, empowering local people and putting the economic opportunity and housing needs of York first. The power of the site is its rail connectivity. It could be the economic driver of the north. Instead, opportunities for jobs will be choked off by housing that fails local people. The Minister’s development charter will simply accelerate the plans of the greedy at the cost of the needy. It must be rejected today.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Like I think most Members, a substantial portion of my casework is on either planning or housing, so I am glad to participate in today’s debate. I would even say that I do not necessarily disagree with the thrust of it, although I ask Opposition Members whether they have actually spoken to any of their colleagues in local government.
Christian Wakeford
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way on this point. Does he agree that while Labour Members are expressing their faux outrage and are already attacking their inadvertently misleading attack ads, what they really need to do is turn lecture mode off and listening mode on?
Chris Clarkson
I thank my hon. Friend for his clairvoyance, because I was about to say that the lived experience does not necessarily match the rhetoric, and nowhere is that clearer than in Andy Burnham’s love letter to developers, the Greater Manchester spatial framework. As Labour authorities were scrambling over one another to designate as much green belt as possible for development, one in particular stood out: Rochdale Borough Council, which volunteered to build more homes than were allocated. In fact, in the first conversation that I ever had with the council leader, he told me that he wanted to build as many unaffordable homes as possible. We thought that we had killed off the plan when the Conservative group on Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council voted it down, but now Andy has simply repackaged it and is trying to force it through again. Apparently, that constitutes listening to people.
We know that planning is a hot-button issue. Several hon. Members have mentioned the by-election result. I honestly congratulate the new hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green): it is a privilege and an achievement to get here. I take some issue with the way she arrived here, though. On Thursday evening, when I was trudging the streets of Chesham, I had the following conversations at door after door: “Oh, yes, I am a Conservative—I always vote Conservative—but I voted for the Liberal Democrats this time because they’ve promised to stop all the house building,” and “I voted for the Liberal Democrats this time because they’re going to stop HS2.” This is a party that talks about social aspiration, but they are the sort of people who make sure that they are not in the house when the cleaner is coming; a party that talks about the environment, but with a Range Rover in the drive that only ever does the school run; a party led by a man who criticised former politicians for becoming lobbyists, but who was a highly paid lobbyist when he was a former politician; a party that describes itself as democratic while trying to overturn the single largest democratic exercise in British history.
The simple fact of the matter is that simply telling people what they want to hear will never get the job done. We cannot just talk the talk; we have to walk the walk. I am cautiously optimistic about the planning Bill. In particular, I want to make it easier to build on brownfield, because we have an abundance of it in my constituency and a severe shortage of good-quality, affordable homes. In closing, I lay down a challenge to my council, because it is very keen on building. Instead of carving up our green belt, will it listen to what people are saying locally, as colleagues in Westminster have asked, and start developing the brownfield now?
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It has been a pleasure to be part of this lively and informed debate, but I want to take a slightly different tack and focus on something very specific. The motion refers to delivering “necessary new homes”; I want to focus on the word “necessary”.
There is a section of our society who are always forgotten—in education, in adult social services and certainly in planning and home building—but whose numbers are growing: adults with learning disabilities and general disabilities. Where is the thought for them? Where is the thought for the number of homes and the housing needed for supported independent living? There is a huge shortage throughout the country, and people are getting desperate.
I refer particularly to constituents I have spoken to, a couple now in their 60s who have taken early retirement to care for their son, who is in his 30s. Their son has been known to social services and to the local authority since 1994, so it should not have come as a surprise to the local authority that he will need some form of accommodation as he gets older. His parents have done everything possible for him, but they are worried that as they start to age, they can no longer continuously care for him as they have done before. They have been trying since 2016 to find him some form of supported independent living, and none can be found. When I have liaised with the family to try to find them suitable accommodation, the stories they have told me of the difficulties they face are truly shocking. I will read just a little from an email that the mother sent me:
“This in itself is further evidence that housing for people like my son should not be subject to these vagaries and upheavals. I can only reiterate the need for a clear pathway for families so that these situations at the whim of the marketplace are avoided. Appropriate housing stock should be provided for vulnerable adults. For example a plot should be allocated on each of the new housing developments. Not just a care home for the elderly or a couple of flats bought up as social housing by housing associations, but properly designed units. Yes there would be a tiny reduction in the property of the big developers as the footprint of, for example, a 2 storey unit with 4 flats and a staff office would probably take up that of 1 large detached home. But I’m sure the good PR as a result would more than make up for that. Far preferable to being moved to out of county specialist provisions which can cost more than double that of an appropriate and more suitable ISL.”
I hope that as the White Paper goes forward, the needs of that section of society are at the forefront of the minds of the Minister and the Secretary of the State.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and to speak in this important debate.
Planning is about reconciling conflicts, such as conflicts in demand and conflicts in pressures both for homes, which are critical, and for building for protection of the environment. It is about reconciling potential conflicts between individuals—between those who wish to develop and their neighbours—and it is also about shaping places and communities. I have a lot of sympathy for many of the Government’s proposed reforms. There is no reason why we should not use modern technology to make planning much quicker and much more interactive, and those things I welcome.
I think that we could also look to legitimately speed up the process in a number of particulars. First, I have long been frustrated—going back to the time when I was a planning Minister in the Department—by the slow way in which statutory consultees often respond. Frequently, they delay applications for months on end. That ought to be very much in the Government’s gift, since most of them are Government agencies. We really ought to be holding their feet to the fire to respond in a timeous fashion when they are required to do so. Secondly, if we can simplify the plan creation process, that too will be sensible. Thirdly, many builders that I know in my constituency—medium-sized builders in particular—are frustrated by the length of time it takes to negotiate pre-commencement conditions. Those really ought to be kept to the minimum so that we can get moving on site.
The other matter we ought to look at in this regard, and I welcome the Government’s proposals for larger-scale development, is a greater simplification of the community infrastructure levy and the way in which we capture planning gain. That is important, and, as yet, we have not quite got that right. Those, too, are things I welcome.
However, I do think that when we make those improvements and modernisations—nothing ever stands still and we can always learn, particularly in technological matters—we also need to recognise that that cannot come at the expense of the right of communities to have a say in how those very communities in which people live, have put down their roots and have a stake, are developed. I have a word of caution for the Minister about how we approach the role of the individual objector and the role of the local authority in the planning process. It is a democratic issue. We have to make sure that we are efficient, but not at the expense of local democracy.
This must mean that a lot of key matters are taken at local level. For example, in Bromley in my constituency, we have a significant town centre, and there is considerable pressure for more tall building in Bromley. In the right place, that can be done, and Bromley Council has shown itself willing to do so, but within certain constraints. We do not want to have a tall buildings policy dictated by the Mayor of London as part of a one-size-fits-all approach. We want to be able to decide for Bromley what the density levels and height levels should be in those areas. I have nothing against the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), but we do not want the same height levels as our neighbours in Croydon, which we can often see from Bromley. That ought to be a matter of our democratic choice. I think that is an important matter, and provided we can get the balance right, I think we can find a sensible way forward.
The final thing I want to say—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—is that we also need to have more planners. Good plan making requires dedicated professionals, particularly at local level, and we suffer from a real shortage of those. I hope the Government will work with the profession to deliver a workforce strategy to get more people particularly into the local authority sector, because all too often those who are good are lost to the private sector. I hope those are issues we can take forward constructively as we take this further.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
The Labour party and I understand and accept that the planning system in its current form is problematic and needs to be reformed, but the plans this Government have presented just hand power over to the developers—those developers who have donated loads of money to the Tory party recently—and away from communities such as mine in Bolton South East.
The Tory Government’s proposals fail to address the wider issues that face our country. The climate crisis is more acute than ever, and without a concerted effort to integrate planning infrastructure and development, we will struggle to achieve our net zero targets. We need sustainable transport. Bolton South East has a disproportionate number of people who are reliant on public transport—70% of them do not have a car—yet none of these plans talk about integrated solutions for the community. It is only Labour with Andy Burnham in power in Greater Manchester that is leading the way on an integrated transport network and the public ownership of buses.
There are currently 1.6 million people on housing waiting lists, and the Government’s projection is to build 100,000 to 340,000 homes per year for the next 10 years, but these do not appear to be homes for social renting, affordable homes, retirement home or sheltered accommodation. There is a huge need for those types of accommodation, and I would encourage the Government to plan for those types of houses as well as those for first-time buyers. We need to concentrate on the people who are the most vulnerable economically and in many other ways. They need to be accommodated.
The new planning laws will be on top of the national planning policy framework introduced in 2012, which allowed green belt land to be used to build homes. We have seen that in my constituency, where a local developer, Peel Holdings, was able to get permission to build thousands of homes on the green belt even though it owned many brownfield sites that it had acquired over the years and that it could quite easily have built on. However, everyone knows that brownfield sites are more expensive. We need social housing, and there are brownfield sites in my constituency that could easily benefit from development, so I would like the Government to set a target to ensure that these houses are built. As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, housing is required, but it is required in the right areas. We cannot have thousands of houses in the salubrious parts of a town or community while people in the inner cities or towns do not have homes.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I think everyone in the Chamber agrees that it is our duty to ensure that this country has the homes we need. It is our moral duty not only to the next generation but to the current generation, because having the right homes in the right places is key to our ability to remain a competitive country in an increasingly competitive world. If we lose that edge, we lose the means to pay for the excellent public services we all enjoy. Badly formed planning policy comes up time and again when we look at economists’ views of the challenges ahead for British growth and prosperity.
However, we also have a duty to ensure that those needs are balanced against the needs and legitimate concerns of existing communities, such as the ones I represent in East Surrey. Those who worry about flood risks, infrastructure constraints or house building harming nature should be heard, and solutions should be found. That is why I support ambitious approaches towards restoring biodiversity, including my campaign for a new “wild belt” designation and the Government’s plans to create new biodiversity units that will help us to create connected corridors that can be wildlife-rich. I notice that those plans have not been mentioned by the Opposition today.
I back local input to a strict standard of beauty and homes design, and increasing online access to local plans so that more people can have a say. We should also prioritise the next generation of local families and key workers for new affordable homes, and ensure that infrastructure needs are addressed. The Government are looking at these things, and I thank the Ministers for their ongoing conversations with me. I would like to see greater flexibility on what the right number of homes should be, based on local areas’ capacity to deliver. Combining all of this together would mean that we were increasing local input, not reducing it.
I have talked about the difficulty of achieving the balance between protecting existing neighbours and providing for future ones, but however hard that is, it is right that the Government are trying to grasp the nettle, and it is morally defunct of the Opposition to try to face two ways at once. We saw this in Chesham and Amersham, where the Liberal Democrats campaigned locally against their own national position on house building and HS2. We also see it in Labour’s motion today, and I have some sympathy with it, but Labour is trying to create division on the Government side of the House in the hope of making political capital while not contributing any ideas to solving a national problem. I wonder how that sits with the constituents they were elected to serve.
In 2008-09, when Labour was most recently in government, only 75,000 new homes were started—the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. In some of the areas where Labour is currently in power, where there are lots of brownfield opportunities, widespread support for house building—I should know: I used to be one of those offering support—and considerable Government funding, Labour is falling far behind. Sadiq Khan promised to build 116,000 new affordable homes by 2022; as of 2021, he has started fewer than half that number.
The problem is Labour, first in national Government and now in local government. Instead of working constructively together to ensure that this country has the homes it needs, Labour just tries to create division, sits on the fence and ignores its own record of failure.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Probably the most bogus claim made for the Government’s planning reforms is that they will lead to more homes. Exactly the opposite is true. Their reforms will incentivise the building of fewer, unaffordable, expensive properties rather than the more affordable homes we want. That was the message I heard when I was knocking on doors in Chesham and Amersham and in my communities in Cumbria over the past few days.
James Cartlidge
To be clear, is it the hon. Gentleman’s view that the Government should build more homes?
Tim Farron
Yes, and the Government’s plan is to do exactly the opposite. Their plan is to allow developers to build a smaller number of executive homes that we do not need, rather than the larger number of affordable homes that we do need. That is against the will and wishes of many people who live in communities around London, in Cumbria and elsewhere in the country. Today, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will—along with, clearly, many on the Opposition Benches—vote with the courage of our convictions to defend our communities, and we will vote for more affordable housing. My challenge to Conservative Members is: “Do you care for your communities? Are you listening to yours? If so, you should have the courage of your convictions and vote with us in the Lobby tonight.”
Let me say more about the planning reforms. It is about not just what is wrong with them but what is not in them. Yes, they will lead to fewer affordable homes and cut local communities out of the planning process—it is an insult to the electorate not to listen to them and allow them to have their say—but the reforms are also a colossal missed opportunity.
Let me share with the House something that is and has been happening in my community during the pandemic. Over many years in places such as the lakes and the Yorkshire dales, there has been a steady erosion of local affordable homes for our communities. We see our communities become ghost towns as a large number and growing proportion of homes in those communities become second homes and holiday lets, leaving us without a vibrant permanent population.
As any geologist will tell us, erosion can take aeons and aeons, and then sometimes a whole cliff will fall into the sea in one go. That is what has happened in the past 15 months: there has been a 32% increase in the number of holiday lets in the Lake district. Up to 80% of all houses sold in Cumbria during the pandemic went into the second-home market. Those are the figures. The anecdotal, person-by-person reality includes the woman I spoke to recently in Ambleside who pays £700 a month for her small flat in Ambleside but has been kicked out so that her landlord can charge £1,000 a week on Airbnb. That is what is happening: a kind of lakeland clearances whereby people are being moved out of Cumbria because people can make more money without there being a local resident population.
I plead with the Government and the Secretary of State; it is great to see him in his place now: when drastic things such as a pandemic happen out of the blue, drastic action needs to happen, and it needs to happen right now, this side of the summer. I suggest that the Secretary of State amends planning law to make holiday lets and second homes separate categories of planning use, so that local authorities and national parks can say, “Enough is enough: if we do not make changes, Ambleside’s community is potentially dying out, and Kirkby Lonsdale’s, Windermere’s and even Kendal’s will, too.”
I am determined that our communities should move out of this pandemic stronger and more vibrant. They should not find a situation in which there just is not a local community anymore. Rather than introducing planning reforms that undermine local communities, the Secretary of State has the opportunity to change planning law to protect them, to stop these lakeland clearances and to make our communities last well into the future.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I note what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said about second homes, because we have a similar problem on the Isle of Wight.
I genuinely wish the Secretary of State and Ministers well on this issue. Our planning reforms should be community led, levelling-up led and environment led, and it would be great to see even more evidence of that, if at all possible. Communities help development to happen, as long as they can shape it. One initial study has shown that places with neighbourhood plans accept more development. Therefore, working with communities gets better results than treating them as the planning equivalent of a foie gras goose, with ever more housing shoved down them. Stripping away democracy, at whatever level, should be avoided by a Conservative Government.
When it comes to levelling up, I believe that the standard method is still a problem at the heart of this matter, and many red wall colleagues are beginning to realise this. In the words of one expert report, the current housing methodology
“systematically disadvantages poorer parts of the country, particularly in the North and Midlands”.
Simply put, we are actively depriving the red wall of investment, because the construction jobs, the infrastructure jobs and the household spend jobs all come down to the south-east. If this process continues reductio in absurdum, like some planning wheel of doom, it is a road to nowhere. We need a better system. I hope the Minister will take that and what others are saying here to heart.
As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, we need a recycling agenda. I suggest that the Secretary of State puts at the heart of that a tax on greenfield sites, to recognise the true cost of greenfield, and the money should go into major campaigns—a massive process—of cleaning up brownfield. It is a disgrace that 70% of finishes on the Isle of Wight are on greenfield. Why, when we have 35 potential brownfield sites? We need to do more with greenfield in the way of taxing it, then spending the money on brownfield. There are many more ideas, and I will be writing to the Minister this week about this, because it is such an important problem. We need to do more to prevent land banking, to ensure legal priority for brownfield and to provide more powers for compulsory purchase. We have 600 empty homes on the Isle of Wight. If the Minister wants to do something to help us on the Island, let the council compulsorily purchase long-term empty buildings and we will take 600 people straight off our housing list.
We need to get our planning right. Surely we have reached the end of using unsustainable, car-dependent, low-density greenfield sites. Our reliance on them must come to an end. We need clear principles, and I recommend these to the Secretary of State: planning should be community-led, environment-led, and levelling-up-led.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I am regularly contacted by constituents who are deeply concerned about the scale and pace of housing development across Newcastle’s outer west, and the long-term failure to deliver the infrastructure and amenities that residents of new housing estates were promised. I share their concern that the current planning system does not have people at its heart. Residents will find it incredible that the Government’s preferred solution is to give housing developers even more of a free hand, while imposing an entirely arbitrary cities uplift on Newcastle’s new-build target. Residents on new estates in Newcastle have all too often felt abandoned by developers, who seem eager to move on to the next lucrative round of house building long before new estates have the amenities and infrastructure needed to make sustainable communities.
The Government’s plans would take the planning system further away from where it should be headed. As the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee points out, the Government’s new planning proposals are essentially housebuilding proposals. Important non-housing areas are barely mentioned at all, while development and landowner interests are clearly favoured over those of local communities.
That is not where we should be taking our planning system. Local shops, employment, transport links, leisure and climate change are all key elements that should form a fundamental part of any cohesive planning system that shapes the communities our constituents live in.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I cannot profess knowledge of the situation in England, but Wales is very much pro development biased toward developers. Essentially, the first part of the process is the local development plan, and once the land is on that document, the planning application is a done deal. Is that the situation in England?
Catherine McKinnell
The problem is further compounded by the revised housing formula. After the application of the Government’s arbitrary cities uplift, the requirement of 1,400 new dwellings per year in Newcastle is 30% higher than the Newcastle and Gateshead core strategy and urban core plan’s average target for 2020-30, so I worry that the over-allocation of land for housing, particularly in a local authority such as Newcastle, where the boundary is tightly drawn, will further affect the availability of land for other commercial and community uses. Newcastle could be looking at a perfect storm emerging from the proposals, with accelerated house building alongside a radically reformed planning system that both reduces local say and lacks focus on the non-housing elements of the planning system, which are essential to creating sustainable joined-up communities. That is not the direction our planning system should be taking.
So many residents in my constituency have been left for years without the kind of amenities that most people take for granted, such as GPs, dentists, proper transport links, schools, or even a local shop. We cannot see the failure to deliver on infrastructure and local facilities, which has been problematic for many thousands of residents in Newcastle Great Park, replicated across Newcastle’s outer west, where thousands of homes are already being built and 1,000 more are in the pipeline. Ministers cannot pretend that housing can be built in isolation from much needed support structures, for both business and leisure. Such structures are key to ensuring that any planning system seeks to shape not just houses, but good communities and places for our constituents to live.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). She captured some of the concerns that my constituents, and I am sure those of colleagues around the country, have, in terms of having the house building, yet not having yet the infrastructure and facilities that ought to go along with it. I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will place those concerns at the heart of what he wants to do with the Planning Bill and ensure that that is improved on. We just have to help and support him in getting there in whatever ways we see fit.
Local planning and house building is almost the No.1 issue in my constituency. In so many ways, it aggravates and grates upon my constituents, whether it is the development at Hulton Park or Horwich golf course. People campaign hard and intensively against a development, and either they see the development go ahead, or the developers come back again and again with new alternatives. It is very frustrating. It is important to get clarity and certainty over which plans can go ahead: either we get the infrastructure and other support—whether schools, GP services or roads—or the plan is vetoed, so we have that certainty for local residents.
I welcome the Government’s strong agenda to develop and focus on brownfield sites, and the commitment of £75 million to Greater Manchester to focus on and get brownfield development first. David Greenhalgh, leader of Bolton Council, has done much to ensure that development in Bolton happens on brownfield sites first. The system does not always lend itself to his championing that cause, but he is leading the way. I welcome the commitment made by the Secretary of State’s predecessor to a spine road on Horwich Loco Works to enable building on brownfield sites. That is the kind of development we want to see and that the Government are championing and enabling.
Another problem in Greater Manchester—this was highlighted earlier—is that devolution plans for Greater Manchester to enable local leadership should have helped to deliver a plan for 10 boroughs of Greater Manchester, of which Bolton and Wigan boroughs would be two. Unfortunately, the Mayor, Andy Burnham, has not delivered on that. He vetoed the first version and did not enable it to be delivered. We are now on the third version, so it is causing a huge number of problems for many residents and it is not enabling the delivery of vital infrastructure. I would welcome it if the Secretary of State and the Housing Minister ensured, if the Greater Manchester spatial framework is not delivered, that the Bolton plan is.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
If the Government’s contention is that the current planning system is flawed and needs reform, I can only agree. One problem is political interference. Last week, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) persuaded the Secretary of State to call in a much needed development of 133 social and affordable homes that would benefit my constituents as much as his. Far too little social housing is being built. As Shelter points out, in the last five years, on average, there have been 6,500 social homes a year—a 10th of what is needed.
It is not just the number of homes that is lacking; good design, energy efficiency and space standards do not get much of a look in either. There is an inequality of arms between short-staffed planning departments and local residents, on the one hand, and well-resourced developers on the other.
If the proposed reforms addressed these and other inequities, they would be welcome, but they do not; in fact, they make them worse. Developers will dominate a system of decision making that sidelines or eliminates public consultation and the role of local councils. In place of section 106 agreements, there will be an infrastructure levy that aims, at best, to fund the current pitiful number of social homes, but there is no explanation of how it will do even that. The free-for-all allowed by permitted development means that we are building the slums of the future—badly designed, cramped, ugly and not fit for habitation. Neighbourhood planning is to go; so too are planning committees. Objections will not be heard in “growth” or “renewal” areas. These proposals are not about challenging NIMBYs or helping young people with families on to the housing ladder but about an increasingly corrupt relationship between the Conservative party and the major developers and builders: cash for profits; donations for deregulation.
I asked my local planning experts at the Hammersmith Society what they would like to see from reform. They pointed out that, on the one hand, public input without rights of appeal is already often brushed aside, while on the other, allowing third-party appeals could see development grind to a halt. A compromise might be for local planners to develop specific briefs for sites in consultation with design panels, setting out what is and is not acceptable, discouraging both the forlorn objection and the speculative application.
With the right approach from Government, both residents and developers may be willing to compromise, but the current proposals are a developers’ charter surrendering both town and countryside to those who, for their own gain, will ruin our collective past without benefiting our individual futures.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I support the Government’s passion for home ownership. They are right that we need to do more to extend that opportunity to a new generation. It was, after all, an opportunity that previous generations took advantage of, enjoying the pleasures that can come from owning one’s own home and doing with it rather more of the things one wishes to do.
I support the Government’s wish to bring forward more brownfield development, because there are still many sites around the country that could be tidied up and better used. I trust that, within that, the Government wish to ease the planning system sufficiently so that where we need to convert tired or redundant commercial buildings into residential properties there will be no great planning impediment in doing so.
I strongly support the wish of the Government to do something extra to make sure that developers with planning permissions build out the permissions they have under a proper local plan. In the borough of Wokingham, of which I represent a part, we have been afflicted in recent years by some landowners and developers gaming the system. Thousands of planning permissions are outstanding, and yet the local plan, which tries to protect areas, has been overwhelmed at times by people lodging appeals on land not within the local plan for development and inspectors deciding that we did not have enough land because of the slow rate of build against all the permissions that are there.
Above all, we need a planning system that can reconcile our wish to protect the green gaps, the green fields, the farms and the woods—indeed, to expand the woods—and at the same time to make enough land available for housing. The Office for National Statistics has shown that, in the year to March 2020, we welcomed some 715,000 extra people into our country. Although 403,000 of them left, that meant that there were still 312,000 extra people to house, and not all of those going freed up homes in the right place for the incomers. We need to have sustainable immigration. Of course we need to welcome people into our country, but they should expect decent standards of housing, and the gap is too large. We now have a backlog of demand and need, and if we keep inviting in hundreds of thousands of extra people, we are not going to catch up. I urge the Government to make things easier so that the trade-offs between environmental protection and more concrete for housing are not so difficult.
Finally, on levelling up, which I strongly support, over the years a large number of executive homes have been built in Wokingham and places like it, attracting people with great qualifications—people capable of commanding well above average earnings. We need to provide that kind of housing if we wish to attract companies and the investment to level up, and we should not put all that housing into the areas that have already been very successful.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
The Government’s planning proposals are a developers’ charter, removing the right of local people to challenge inappropriate developments in their own street or neighbourhood. The importance of protecting that right and ensuring that the planning system involves local residents was abundantly clear to me last week when I met residents in West Kirby campaigning against an 18-metre high 5G mast on a residential street—a campaign I fully support.
The Government intend that new-style local plans will divide land in England into three zones: growth, renewal and protected. While residents will be consulted on these zones during the development of a local plan, once the plan is completed, they will have very little say—and in the vast majority of cases, no say at all—on what gets built in growth and renewal areas.
Protected areas, which will include the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas, local wildlife sites, areas with significant flood risk and important areas of green space, will continue to be subject to the current planning application process. However, even if an area is designated as protected, that does not necessarily mean there will not be any development; it just means there will be no automatic planning permission. Clearly, under this Government, such areas are not safe from development.
People in Wirral West value the green belt very highly, and many are understandably concerned that Leverhulme Estates, which owns much of the green belt in Wirral, is arguing for the release of the green belt for building, despite Wirral Council’s commitment to a brownfield-only policy. People have contacted me recently with their concerns about seeing surveyors out in the fields around Greasby and between Thingwall and Barnston. They are worried that these green fields are at risk.
People in Wirral West want to see a clear commitment from Government to protect the green belt, as do I. The Government’s proposals offer no such thing. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s recent report “The future of the planning system in England” stated that:
“All individuals must still be able to comment and influence upon all individual planning proposals.”
That is a basic fundamental right, yet it is one that the Government want to take away from people. CPRE, the countryside charity, has expressed concern, saying:
“The Planning Bill looks set to prioritise developers’ needs over local communities”.
Wirral West residents have made their feelings clear. Many have written to me saying that the proposed changes, which would allow some planning proposals to proceed without approval by elected councillors, are bad news for local democracy, communities and our environment, and they are right. The Government should give local people and their elected representatives more say over the development of their neighbourhoods, not less. I therefore call on Members on the Government Benches to support this motion and send a clear message to Ministers that the right of communities to object to individual planning applications must be protected.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
We in West Sussex are on the frontline of the debate on planning, squeezed between the coast and the capital. In my short time here, I have spoken many times against proposed developments on greenfield land at Adversane, Ashington, Buck Barn, Barnham, Mayfield, Kirdford and Wisborough Green. Today, we can add Rock Road, Storrington to that list, where Clarion Housing Group is trying to build on more than 30 acres of species-rich woodland, against the wishes of local people and the neighbourhood plan.
The homes that the nation needs should be built on brownfield land or in urban areas. A perfectly sensible national target for new dwellings is roughly one new dwelling for every 160 adults living in an area. That would be reasonable if everyone paid their fair share. In the south-east, London built only one new dwelling for every 400 of its people, and of that diminished figure, just one in 10 were sold to a conventional owner-occupier. The construction rate of tall buildings, which soared under Mayor Johnson, has plummeted by half. Under Mayor Khan, we see more foot dragging than on a bunioned millipede.
Faced with a hostile environment and weighed down by planning conditions and social housing mandates, it is no wonder that developments look to where the grass is literally greener. We do not even have to travel to London. The Green and Labour-led Brighton Council is proposing 16 developments on 28 green hectares when there is abundant brownfield land inside that city, so I congratulate the Conservative councillors there.
We must learn lessons from one of Aesop’s Fables, “The North Wind and the Sun”. I know that the Secretary of State, who is a very decent man, recognises the challenge, but blowing harder simply increases the level of noise and sees communities understandably pull their cloak tighter for protection. As we reform planning, let us instead bring out the sun and unleash a field of carrots that would put Beatrix Potter’s Farmer McGregor to shame.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Of all the problems that my constituents bring to me on a regular basis, it is planning and development that, time and again, possesses some of the greatest difficulties. The Government’s plans to take power from communities and hand them to developers will be nothing short of a disaster for our green spaces. Already, local people have too little control over which developments are built near to them. Communities such as Keresley in my constituency risk being subsumed into the city suburbs by plans that they did not approve and are now fearful of losing much of their unique village identity. Even when comparatively few homes are under construction, those scrutinising plans often lack the powers needed to ensure that new additions are in character with existing homes, with strict enforcement made virtually impossible by loopholes created by Whitehall.
In addition, local councils such as Coventry City Council are being forced to build tens of thousands more homes than residents require and, if they refuse, not only would yet more homes be foisted upon them, but those developments would be unleashed to sprawl outwards with zero control for those most affected locally.
Worse still, new developments often include little decent social housing and too often lack the local public services required to support new homes. Put simply, our planning laws are already widely unbalanced, and it is time that we put local people before the big developers’ profit margins.
As the Government craft their latest changes to planning policies, Ministers must at last take the time to engage with those affected by development—those who feel powerless in the face of mass building projects. When local voices are ignored, the result is the wrong houses built in the wrong places. Instead of lucrative estates constructed by Conservative party donors, Britain needs planning and development rules that listen and respond to local people and local needs. Handing power back to communities and their representatives in local government can unlock a brighter future for how we meet our housing needs. No community can be expected to support a development that it was powerless to shape.
Once, those on the Conservative Benches spoke of a property-owning democracy, yet now they seek to strip away the last few democratic safeguards in our planning system. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of families are left renting poor quality houses for sky-high rents, while others are forced to move away from the only community that they have ever known thanks to development designed to serve only property investors.
The Government are putting the profits of a greedy few ahead of the concerns of thousands whose communities are faced with bulldozers, so I call on Members from all parties to stand up to be counted against the Government’s proposals as they seek to permanently rob communities of the powers to shape their neighbourhoods and their own futures.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The wind-ups will begin promptly at 7.10, and apologies to the probably 17 Members who will fail to be called.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to be called to speak today, because Britain needs more good homes. That is an undeniable fact. We witness it in the ever-increasing house prices right across our country. We witness it in the ever more cramped accommodation that too many families are forced to settle for. We witness it in the ever more expensive and dysfunctional rental market trap, which makes it so hard for so many people of my age to buy their first home.
The Government have sensible proposals on the table to allow communities to designate those areas that are appropriate for development and those that should be protected; to make building beautiful homes a top priority; to empower communities to set out the right design codes to ensure that new homes are in keeping with their surroundings; and to create an infrastructure levy to fund the new roads, schools and GP surgeries that these new developments need in order not to impose a detrimental effect on the existing community.
Like any constituency MP, I know just how hard it is to discuss matters relating to planning, but we are sent to this House to do the right thing for the country, and I am clear that this must mean cutting the ropes that are preventing us from building the homes that our people need. For too long, we have attempted to address what is fundamentally a supply-side problem with demand-side solutions. Frankly, that is the easier politics of the situation, though we owe it to the country to be honest that the fundamental issue is one of land supply. Even if someone is fortunate enough to own their own home, especially in the parts of the capital or the south where prices are so high, it is their children and grandchildren who are the victims of the impasse that our inefficient planning system has created.
We meet today in the shadow of the Chesham and Amersham by-election. I wish the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) every success in her new role representing that constituency and welcome her to this House, but this was an election won in the very worst spirit of pandering to nimbyism, denying the growing social injustice that we are witnessing and privileging the interests of the haves over the have-nots in our society. This may be all right for the Liberal Democrats, whose long tradition of saying one thing locally and one thing nationally has reasserted itself; it may be all right for a desperate Labour party whose speeches collectively today have been nothing more than a terrible mixture of, frankly, hypocrisy and innuendo directed at those on the Government Benches; but it is not a choice open to my party.
To govern is to be sent here to make the tough choices on behalf of the nation, and we have to face the reality that there is nothing inevitable about the broken housing market that we have at the moment. It is broken because we have lacked the political courage to fix it. That needs to change. The Government have come forward with moderate and pragmatic proposals to unlock more land for housing while protecting the legitimate interests of existing communities and looking after their areas. It is high time for us to take this forward and build the homes that Britain needs.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The planning process is part of our democracy. It is one of the reasons we elect local councillors and one of the reasons we have planning committees that are independent of party political leadership. Citizens in every community across the country have a stake and a say in what happens in their local area, but the Conservatives’ planning reforms pull the rug from under our local democracy and instead roll out the red carpet for the big developers, with the automatic granting of outline planning permission; statutory presumptions in favour of development; planning notices moving to online only; no real role for existing neighbourhood plans; still not enough action on net zero energy-efficient housing resources and low-carbon heat; proposals that do not go far enough to deliver more council and affordable housing; and, based on recent permitted development rights, high-street shops that can be converted into often low-quality housing, with limited standards on space, light or community structure, and mobile phone masts that can be seemingly plonked anywhere. All in all, it is a complete shambles.
Let me take a few examples from my constituency. In Horfield, a developer bought a large house on the corner of a street and is developing a complex of bedrooms with shared living spaces. Local residents with concerns were able to submit them to the planning process, but under these proposals, the development could have had its planning permission automatically granted. In Avonmouth, we have had a long-running battle with an over-concentration of low-quality waste processing sites. Each new application for such a site now receives very high engagement from local residents, but under these proposals, a statutory presumption in favour of development could now apply.
On the Downs, a proposal to convert an old toilet block into a new coffee shop required the publication of physical notices. Even in those circumstances, many local residents did know about them. Under these proposals, those notices will now just be online. In Lawrence Weston, we have a very successful local neighbourhood development plan, but under these proposals, all that hard work by local residents now stands for nothing, with neighbourhood plans being effectively closed down.
In Henleaze, a freeholder is trying to use permitted development rights to build more flats on top of existing ones. Leaseholders sought to buy the freehold to prevent a future development, but under these proposals, the cost of the freehold has massively increased because of speculative development, making it impossible for the existing tenants to afford it. The Government promised to revive high streets, but under these proposals, they are just closing them down.
Lastly, for the thousands of young people and families on low incomes, these proposals offer little hope. We need more council houses, more affordable homes, a route to home ownership where tenants can save for their deposit, and low-carbon, energy-efficient houses now, and we need to protect the rights of citizens to be a valued part of our local democracy. It is therefore evident that the Government need to get back to the drawing board.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
In the last year, the Government have built roughly 244,000 additional homes for our people, the highest number for 33 years. While that is good news, in my view it is merely a step in the right direction. Even if we achieve the target of 300,000 additional homes a year in this Parliament, it will be nowhere near enough to even begin addressing the housing crisis.
In my constituency, as I have said before in the House, the average house price is around £300,000, which is nine times the average salary. It is absurd that most young people today cannot even aspire to get on the property ladder unless they have family help or inherit some money. It is not morally right and it is not sustainable, and this is not just about private ownership. According to Shelter, which I met a couple of weeks ago and am doing some work with, there are hundreds of thousands of people stuck in temporary accommodation across the country. Even in my constituency, the local council’s Homechoice website says:
“There is a severe shortage of homes in the South Gloucestershire area. Most applicants on the Housing Register will have to wait a long time for re-housing and many will not be re-housed at all.”
It is therefore absolutely vital that we increase supply.
The Government are investing £11.5 billion to unlock affordable homes across the country, but to really increase supply we have to reform and speed up the planning process, which is precisely what the Government are trying to do. We must make the system faster, simpler and more modern in order to deliver what we need. We have to make it accessible, using modern technology and data to make it much more efficient. That is why I am again disappointed to hear colleagues from all parts of the House trying to pre-emptively kill any reform to score political points and shore up support from people in their constituencies who are already on the housing ladder. We cannot keep using the excuse about the wrong houses in the wrong places to justify saying no to any new development.
These reforms will make planning and building simpler and more transparent. We need to make building homes on a much larger scale easier for everyone, from the smallest local builder to the largest social housing corporation. We have to plan to get the diggers moving, but we cannot ignore the fact that the green belt is strangling housing growth in some of our cities. There are many areas of our country that should be protected, but less than roughly 10% of the land available is built on, so we have space. We can build new towns, and we need to be more open-minded about what solutions might look.
As I have said before, the housing crisis is shredding the social contract. We risk condemning an entire generation of young people to a huge amount of student debt and no prospect whatsoever of ever owning their own home, and with renting becoming ever more unaffordable, to being stuck in shared housing for the foreseeable future. This must go beyond narrow party politics. This is our duty, as somebody said earlier. We are elected to come here and make tough decisions, but the right decisions, so we must increase supply and reform the planning system, so that we can build enough homes for all our people for the future.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I am so glad to speak in this debate, because if there was no problem in Cornwall with housing, we would not be having it. We need the planning White Paper to deliver the right housing in the right places for the right people, and we cannot get close to delivering on the Government’s levelling-up agenda unless we get the housing right.
This debate is about local involvement in planning, and local priorities are at the heart of this. I know that my local community in west Cornwall and on Scilly would rally behind house building if my constituents knew that local families would be provided with homes they can afford and can call their own. I ask the Secretary of State to take a careful look at the situation in Cornwall, where local people find it difficult to get on the housing ladder. The demand to live in such a beautiful place as ours has created great problems for people who already live locally. With the fresh administration on Conservative-led Cornwall Council and incentives from the Government to help first-time buyers, I am of the belief that we can fix this problem. With the planning White Paper, that is made even more certain.
The planning White Paper must and can sweep in three areas of opportunity, all of which are consistent with the Government’s levelling-up agenda, and they all depend on a robust local plan. The first is homes built for people who need them. In places such as Cornwall and other areas referred to this afternoon, we need to look carefully at how housing policy can ensure that the houses being built are available to local people.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my view that part of the housing crisis in Cornwall is very much driven by second and holiday home ownership? Does he therefore agree that it is time for the Government to look seriously at requiring planning permission for a home that will not be a primary residence?
Derek Thomas
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention because I was about to come to that subject and credit him with that very idea. It is absolutely the case that we live in a beautiful part of the world; Mr Deputy Speaker, do come and visit, but please do not buy a house there—not until we get this sorted.
My hon. Friend is right that people want houses in our area—they want to have their bolthole there—but that has caused huge problems for communities such as Mousehole, St Ives and Porthleven in my constituency. We do not want to interfere in the market, but the idea right now is that we have some sort of planning condition for properties that are not going to be a primary residence.
This White Paper must sweep in stronger local communities, where family homes help the viability of the pub, the local post office and the local school. I have a situation right now in Coverack; its fantastic community school has years of history, yet there are just not enough children in the area to sustain it. We have a plan, but for the plan to survive it needs housing built for local families in the next three years.
Finally, the planning White Paper must sweep in opportunities for vibrant small and medium-sized enterprises that can provide apprenticeships and skilled jobs as these new homes are built and as existing ones are retrofitted for the benefit of our environment. We want to ensure that we live in homes that are healthy and safe, that provide the opportunity for young people to attain better in school and that are good for older people as they age.
I am glad to have been able to speak in this debate on this critical issue. I would be absolutely wrong not to stand up for my constituents and those in the rest of Cornwall who are struggling today to be able to live in the place that they call home.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
These planning reforms are the biggest change to the planning system since 1947, yet this White Paper is a jumbled series of aspirations and statements that do not amount to a coherent document. It would fail the test that every local plan has to go through.
Liberal Democrats believe in community empowerment. I believe that the people of Bath and their elected local representatives understand the needs of our community better than Ministers or, indeed, those developers who just want to make a profit. Yet there will be no more local input into application development, nor into public hearings. The proposals are less strategic, less flexible and less democratic. What is more, there is no evidence that the reforms will actually make any difference to the number of homes being built. Local councils approve nine in 10 planning applications. In fact, the number of homes granted planning permission has far outpaced the number of homes being built. More than 1 million homes that have been granted planning permission in the last decade have yet to be built. If the Government are trying to address the housing crisis, this is completely the wrong answer.
Any review of England’s planning system must consider not only the delivery of housing, but the many roles that planning authorities play in creating great spaces for their communities: connectivity, accessibility, affordability, access to green spaces, schools and infrastructure provision. All those things contribute to ensuring quality of life in our communities, as, indeed, does the quality of housing we build.
Every new home should be built with the climate and ecological emergency in mind. Domestic heating accounts for about 14% of the UK’s carbon emissions. We cannot hope to reach our emissions targets without proper plans to decarbonise heating. Climate action begins at home. Rather than undermining local authorities, the Government should be directing their energy towards building greener, more resilient and more sustainable homes.
Planning continues to be one of the areas in which every local community gets involved and local democracy plays such a vital role in our community. The current proposals are an assault on democracy, and the emphatic Lib Dem win in Chesham and Amersham—fought on issues of local democracy—should be a wake-up call for this Government. The right of local communities to have a say over planning in their area must be protected.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to have the chance to speak in today’s debate.
This is an emotive issue. For most people, a home is the biggest purchase they will ever make. Where we buy our home—our local neighbourhood—has a huge impact on our quality of life. Planning decisions affect our access to public services, jobs, retail and leisure facilities, and quality green spaces. To listen to the Opposition, I would think that we lived under a perfect planning system. Our planning system is decades old. Anyone who has served in local government knows how clunky it is and how little involvement local people have in planning decisions. Local neighbourhood plans take several years to draw up and even then they are not respected. In the ward I previously represented as a Wolverhampton city councillor, there was a clear local neighbourhood plan that was against any homebuilding on a local nature reserve—on the site of the Wolverhampton Environment Centre. The council has ploughed on regardless and has plans for a number of homes. Local people are still campaigning against the development, assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). As the Minister said earlier, only 1% of local people are getting involved in planning decisions, and I applaud the Government for their commitment to an easier system for local people to navigate. Online maps with design codes and the ability to really see what is suggested in a good level of detail will increase engagement.
I again draw Ministers’ attention to the issue of cross-border co-operation. My northern border with South Staffs is green belt and it is under threat. My constituents are gravely concerned that they have no say, and what suits South Staffordshire does not suit Wednesfield and Bushbury. As any development would add significant pressure on public services in Wolverhampton, I seek reassurance that the voices of people affected by large developments should be heard even across the county boundary.
As time is short, I will conclude by applauding the ambition of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and not just because it will be my new neighbour in Wolverhampton. Levelling up opportunity includes the opportunity to own one’s own home. This has simply been a pipe dream for so many of my constituents. Beautiful affordable homes helping ordinary working people to fulfil the dream of home ownership is absolutely the right thing to do. Building on brownfield land, and indeed investing in the National Brownfield Institute in my constituency, is the right thing to do.
There is so much to address around planning: making retirement housing a positive move that will free up family homes, ending land banking, innovative design and bringing empty homes back into use. Modernising the planning system is a difficult nettle to grasp, but it is long overdue as the current system has not been fit for purpose and it will not deliver the homes we desperately need.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on such an important issue for my constituents.
Ministers are right to say that fundamental reform is needed. The current planning system is not fit for purpose. As I have said in this House before, it is too distant from the people it most directly impacts. That leads to developments that do not work for the communities who have to live there for years. For too long the system has been unfairly weighted in favour of developers. The Government’s proposals will not increase the ability of local people to have their say; they will dilute it. The proposed introduction of a Whitehall-appointed board of developers will lead to local people no longer having the ability to object to inappropriate developments. It will remove the right of local people and councillors to have a say at key points in the planning process. They will have little opportunity to influence the design of specific planning applications, as most design codes will be site-specific and so no longer subject to local consultation.
As an MP for a central London constituency with some of the highest levels of building in the country, every day I see the negative impact that unsystematic development has on communities in Vauxhall. We have hundreds of tower blocks going up that often block out daylight for neighbours. We see huge telecommunication masts placed in the middle of small streets in conservation areas against the wishes of residents. We see communities disrupted by the introduction of 24-hour businesses that bring little or no benefit to the area.
Planning can be viewed as boring or as a nimby subject. This is often because residents feel powerless to influence local decisions. I pay tribute to the community groups across Vauxhall who work hard to challenge some of the proposed developments, volunteering their time, effort, expertise and knowledge to read through pages of designs, attending consultation meetings and responding by focusing on the needs of the local community. Residents in Vauxhall understand and appreciate the need for growth and regeneration, but that must be done with the consent of the people who have to live with the daily consequences of planning decisions. Everyone wants to see local people and their local elected representatives given a bigger, not a smaller, say over planning decisions. I therefore urge the Government to rethink their proposals.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
When it comes to planning, everyone except wealthy landlords gets a raw deal from this Government. Since 2010, the Conservatives have slashed funding for new homes, refused to regulate for higher standards, and given a free hand to commercial property developers. The number of Government-funded homes for social rent has fallen by more than 90%, the number of households stuck renting from a private landlord has risen by more than 1 million, and the number of young people who own a home has fallen by almost 900,000. According to Shelter, even before the pandemic half of all renters were only one pay cheque away from losing their homes, with no savings to fall back on. Since then, the Resolution Foundation has found that renters are 40% more likely to work in places that have been shut down by the coronavirus crisis.
The Conservatives plan to reward their developer donors by selling out communities with a new developers’ charter, which will remove powers from elected local representatives, thus silencing residents and tipping the balance of power further in favour of profit-seeking developers. The Government plan to scrap section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, yet section 106 agreements between developers and local authorities result in almost 50% of all affordable homes for social rent. By scrapping section 106 and the community infrastructure levy altogether, the Government risk abandoning one of the chief engines of affordable living. The president of the Royal Institute of British Architects said that this could
“lead to the creation of the next generation of slum housing.”
Rather than making it harder to build homes that are fit for the many, the Government must rapidly increase the construction of council housing and genuinely affordable properties to urgently address the housing crisis. The soaring inequality and exclusion derive from the way land is owned and controlled. The Government make ideological choices to sustain this inequality as a direct attack on the working class.
In my constituency of Leicester East, overcrowding is a huge problem. There are pockets of areas close to Leicester General Hospital with populations of 2,000 living in an area 60,000 square metres in size. That is an average of 32 square metres of space, which is the equivalent of a single box bedroom, without front or back gardens. The UK average is 3,676 square metres of space per person, which is more than a hundred times the amount of space that working-class communities have in my constituency, yet the Government want to downgrade our much-needed and loved local NHS general hospital and sell off its land to property developers.
It is sadly not surprising that this Government act so overwhelmingly in the interests of landowners and landlords when we remember that many of them are in fact landlords themselves, catering for their property developer donors. The Government’s proposal is not about partnership with communities but about a land grab. Housing is a fundamental right, without which it is impossible to build a secure and happy life. The Government must recognise that fact and begin to work in the interests of all UK—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, Claudia. I call James Daly, who is to finish his speech at 10 past seven.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
This is a really important debate about the role that local communities play in the planning process. As we have heard from Members from all parties, communities have their own priorities. In Bury, we have a thriving local debate about where we feel housing should be put and the type of housing we need in our area. Organisations such as Bury Folk Keep It Green are at the forefront of the debate. Thousands of my constituents in Bury hold the view that their priority is to protect the green belt, and there is a clear local view that people want their democratically elected politicians to protect it.
Let us look at the Government’s position. The recent response to the Government’s consultation on changes to the current planning system makes it crystal clear that
“meeting housing need is never a reason to cause unacceptable harm to such”
things as the green belt or countryside. Indeed, in that consultation response the Government go on to say:
“We can plan for well designed, beautiful homes, with access to the right infrastructure in the places where people need and want to live while also protecting the environment and green spaces communities most value.”
Why are we not in that situation in Bury? Why are the Greater Manchester spatial framework and other such documents being railroaded through, destroying the green belt in Walshaw and Tottington and at Elton reservoir? The reason is that my local Labour council will not put a local plan in place. How can planning exist in any way, shape or form when our local Labour council do not have a local plan? It is simply beyond belief that, since 1997, we in Bury have not had a local vision of how our communities should look. I implore Bury Labour: please, put a local plan in place that protects our green belt, rather than subcontracting the responsibility—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, James, but it is 10 past 7 and we have to start the wind-ups. At least you got in.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to close this debate in which many Back Benchers have expressed their concerns, both about their local areas and about the Government’s stated intention to remove the community voice from local planning decisions. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to acknowledge all the excellent contributions to the debate.
The motion in my name and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) and others, states that
“planning works best when developers and the local community work together to shape local areas and deliver necessary new homes; and…calls on the Government to protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.”
We have brought it to the House because of the wealth of opposition throughout the country to the Government’s proposals, including from professional institutions, respected non-governmental organisations and councillors of all parties, including the Conservative-led Local Government Association, as well as the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee in its unanimous excellent report.
From the outset, the health and wellbeing of people and communities were at the heart of what became the town and country planning system. Planning is making decisions that are central to our lives and that impact on the generations that follow. It is not about churning out housing “units”. It is about delivering homes—enough homes for the full range of pockets and household types, particularly young people who want to get on with their lives. It is not just about building new estates. It is about place making, incorporating the social, transport and physical infrastructure that makes a place a community and ensuring that there are places of work, providing jobs, regeneration and growth. Planning is about deciding how we move towards net zero, how we enhance and improve our biodiversity, how we protect and enhance our natural environment, and how we build strong and sustainable local high streets.
Many of the challenges we face as a society and as a country will need to be tackled through the planning system. To do that, new development has to be planned and determined with the engagement of people and their elected local representatives, but the Government want to undermine local involvement—in fact, they want to undermine the whole planning system. The proposals in the White Paper, confirmed in the Queen’s Speech, are the next step in the Conservative party and its friends’ 10-year project to dismantle the planning system. They have been doing it for years, such as through permitted development rights and going back to delivering “slum housing”, as the Government’s own adviser described it. Instead of involving local communities in future development decisions, the Government want to limit that. The right to comment on planning applications would be abolished in the new growth areas, potentially in large parts of the country—[Interruption.] Well, which areas are going to be growth areas? It could be large parts of the country, affecting many constituencies.
Planning applications will be determined not by local elected councillors but by unelected planning officers. Even the delegation process will end. The Government’s ambition is to require all local plans, covering all of England, to be delivered within 30 months. That is way beyond the resources not only of most planning departments, but even of most community organisations that already comment on and are involved in planning matters. The task is just too great, the timescale just too tight.
Community engagement and discussion leads to better outcomes. When I speak to voters in my constituency, they consistently tell me that not only do they want truly affordable, good-quality homes, but they want the community services that go with them—sport and play areas, schools, more buses and so on. Hounslow Council’s planning decisions have delivered all of those, and more. The people are being sidelined because the Government do not trust the people. The Government justify tearing up our planning system by saying that they want to build more homes, but as we heard today, about 1 million homes have permission; they are just not being built out. The Government proposals risk ignoring the issues of quality, affordability or type of housing to be built.
There is a housing crisis—we accept that—but there is no doubt that the Government are delivering the wrong answer to the growing challenge. Too many young people are priced out of the community that they grew up in. The bulk of homes in recent years have been executive homes in the south-east or expensive London flats, all way out of the reach of local people. Defenders of the Government’s plans have said time and again that these proposals are the solution to the housing crisis, as though delivering all these homes would magically bring all house prices down to a level affordable to all young people across England. They know that the solution is far more complex than that.
Ruth Cadbury
I am sorry, but I cannot. You have told me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I need to leave enough time for the Secretary of State.
Only in some places are prices low enough that young people can buy. Schemes such as Help to Buy are affordable in my constituency only to a few who earn City salaries or have a large chunk of money from the bank of mum and dad. From 2008, the Labour Government delivered the biggest affordable housing programme in a generation, with £10.8 billion in three years, but it ended with the 2010 election.
We need a planning and housing system that delivers well designed homes in genuinely mixed, well designed communities with proper infrastructure. The Government have had 10 years of tinkering and have undermined the planning system. They have allowed a free-for-all in town and village centres, where any shop can be converted into a flat without requiring planning permission.
No one on the Opposition Benches is suggesting that the planning system should be preserved in stone. It is ludicrously complex, and local plans take too long. There are elements that we welcome in the Government’s proposals—digital technology, a speeding up of the local plan process and a plan for every part of England. We agree, and the Government acknowledge, that there is a desperate shortage of planners with the range of skills needed. However, beyond the removal of public participation and the failure to address the housing crisis properly, so much is missing from the Government’s proposals.
Specialist housing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) mentioned, protecting our high streets, levelling up, protecting and enhancing our natural environment, delivering net zero, mitigating the impact of climate change—the Government talk the talk on those objectives, but do not walk the walk. The specific proposals are not there, and we cannot support the Government without those details. It feels as if they are just not interested.
We need an effective planning system—an improvement on the current system, not its demise. Rather than removing the public and their elected representatives from the picture, the Government need to improve their engagement and retain their right to have a say over planning applications. They can start by giving planning committees back the power to determine whether shops, office blocks and warehouses should be converted into housing, and if they are approved—because some are suitable—to ensure that they make for good-quality housing.
There are developers that want to work with communities and councillors to develop good places that serve the neighbourhood. I have worked on community plans with just such firms, and they should be encouraged, but too many of the Government’s friends and party donors in the house building industry just see the planning process as a block on their mission to deliver “units” and little else.
We want a planning system that effectively mediates between public and private, between community and decision makers, between local and national—a system that is transparent, open and participative. We need more decent, affordable homes, but a home is more than bricks and mortar, and a community is more than a collection of houses miles away from anything and anywhere. The Government must listen to the people and their elected representatives, not their paymaster donors. We do not need a developers’ charter; we need a charter for communities and delivering homes.
The Government’s gagging of communities, removing the inconvenience of people and their elected councillors from decisions, is perhaps a new version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” If the Minister is unsure about the reforms, he could call a friend, but after last week’s by-election result, I have a feeling that his friend will beg him to withdraw these plans. He could even ask the audience, but some of the audience on the Benches behind him do not seem, from their contributions today, to be too keen to help him. That simply leaves him 50:50—plough on, or ditch these proposals.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
The Opposition called this debate today to divide us, but I do not think they have succeeded. What we have heard, time and again, across the House is a very high degree of consensus. Member after Member, from either side of the House, queued up to say that this country needs to build more houses. Some said we have a housing crisis. Some said we have a generational duty to help young people and those on low incomes to enjoy the dream of home ownership, which so many of us—the vast majority of people in this House—have already achieved and are enjoying. Member after Member, including almost every contribution from the Labour party, queued up to say that the current planning system does not work. Some made extremely good and important points. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) said that the single biggest issue she hears from her constituents on is the planning system and how it is failing to address the needs of her constituents. Yet we also heard from the Labour Front-Bench team an argument that we should do absolutely nothing—that we should not take forward any ambitious plans to reform the planning system at all.
The shadow Secretary of State spoke for nine minutes but said absolutely nothing. All he has managed to achieve with this debate has been to shine a light on the Labour party’s own derisory record on housing. Let us not forget that this Government, back in 2010, inherited levels of house building at the lowest they had been since the 1920s. Those of us who are just about old enough to remember that time recall when John Prescott was Secretary of State in my Department and they recall his flagrant disregard for the green belt, the needs of local communities and local democracy, with his failed approach to regional planning, which we scrapped when we came to power.
Those of us who see what Labour is doing today see how damaging and feeble their policies are. If we look at Wales, we see that, despite the rhetoric we heard today, the Labour party is developing 12 council houses—for the whole of Wales. In Croydon, the Labour borough represented by the shadow Housing Secretary and run by his closest friends and cronies, the local council has gone bankrupt and its housing company, Brick by Brick, has taken tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and has failed to deliver a single home. Its social housing stock is so disgracefully Dickensian that the housing regulator has in recent weeks condemned it. What has the hon. Gentleman said? He has said nothing at all. His Twitter account, which he loves to use to criticise the Conservative party, has fallen as silent as that of Donald Trump—he has said absolutely nothing. So we will take no lectures from the Labour party.
We also heard from the Lib Dems, who have mysteriously gone AWOL now, at the end of the debate. Days after winning a by-election, saying that they would campaign to ditch the planning Bill, they could not even be bothered to turn up to the end of the debate. We have heard the appalling, rank hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats throughout this debate. Their leader went on TV at the weekend to declare himself a “yimby”, but that is very different from what he was saying to people on the doorsteps of Buckinghamshire in recent weeks. It is better to describe him and his party, in the term of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), as a “banana”—build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.
Except in practice that is not what some Liberal Democrat councils do. The two Lib Dem Members who did turn up to speak in this debate, the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), both represent areas with Liberal Democrat councils that are building twice the number of homes that the Government are asking them to build. I do not criticise those Liberal Democrat councils for trying to build homes, but if anyone is objectively concreting over the green belt or greenfield land, it is those councils that are choosing to build twice the number of homes that the Conservative Government are asking them to build.
Of course, it was the Liberal Democrat leader who voted consistently for HS2 and, when we were in coalition, voted for every one of this Conservative Government’s planning Bills from 2010 until he lost his seat in 2015, so the speeches from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrats were, I am afraid, just embarrassing. Nothing was more emblematic of that than the graphic put out by the Labour party this afternoon, which showed some properties in the Cotswolds that Labour had taken from an article in a newspaper with the headline “Why £10 million country estates are the new £5 million estates”. How out of touch is that? We on this side of the House do want to build homes. We do want to help young people on to the housing ladder, and we do care about homelessness and rough sleeping, and tackling intergenerational unfairness.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, a great deal united the House in this debate, and six themes emerged, all of which are fortunately the chapters—the pillars—of the planning reform Bill. First is our united desire to see greater environmental protection—our categoric insistence that the green belt must be protected, in a way that the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, who is doing more than any other person in this country to build upon the green belt, does not seem to understand. We will enshrine those principles in the Bill.
Secondly, we will ensure that the Bill means a massive improvement in the quality and design of properties. We will bring forward the ideas of Sir Roger Scruton’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, so that new homes in this country are built to a dramatically higher standard.
Robert Jenrick
I cannot, as I have only a few minutes left, but I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is at the vanguard of this issue.
Thirdly, everyone in this country wants to see more infrastructure built alongside the homes—the GP surgeries, the hospitals, the roads, the parks, the playgrounds. We will bring forward an infrastructure levy that gets more of the land value out of the landowners and the big developers and puts it at the service of local people. That will mean more affordable homes being built in this country than ever before.
We will also ensure that we tip the balance away from the big-volume house builders and towards the small builders, so that local entrepreneurs—the brickies, the plumbers and the builders in our constituencies—get a fair shot at the system.
Robert Jenrick
I will not, because I have only a few moments left.
If the Bill were to fail, it is the big-volume house builders who would be celebrating. They would be opening the champagne bottles, and the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) knows that perfectly well. The current system is stacked in favour of the big boys and we are going to change that.
We also want to see more brownfield land built upon, more regeneration, more levelling up and more support for our high streets, which has never been needed more than it is today, and the Bill will deliver that. It will give local authorities more power for compulsory purchase to assemble land and regenerate those important and much-loved spaces in our communities, and at the heart of it is a brownfield-first policy for the whole country.
Lastly, we are going to ensure that there is more engagement and more local democracy, not less. We are going to ensure that the plan-making process is faster and better. We are going to ensure that plans are produced in 13 months, not seven years, and that millions more of our fellow citizens are involved in the plan-making process than they are today. As we have heard already, only 1% of the public even engage in the current system. We are going to ensure that many, many more people do so. We are going to ensure that neighbourhood plans have more teeth and that more of them happen across the country, not just in the most engaged and well-heeled places. We will ensure that they become ubiquitous and a key part of the planning system. And we are going to end speculative development, which does more than anything to lead to the corrosion of public trust in the planning system.
The benefits of our proposals are clear, and we are going to ensure that people across the House and across the country see and appreciate them in the months to come. Of course we are going to listen, because planning is inherently contentious. It has always been that way, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) said in his important speech, we are not sent here to tackle the easy questions. We are sent here to tackle the hard ones, and some of us—those of us on the Government side of the House, and potentially some in the Labour party—want to work together in the weeks and months to come to ensure that we build the homes this country needs, that we tackle the housing crisis and that we build those homes in a way that we can all be proud of for generations to come.
Question put.
Protecting Britain’s Steel Industry
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 355 - Question accordingly negatived.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes the British steel industry, and the livelihoods and communities it supports, should not be undermined by unfair competition from overseas; regrets that the Trade Remedies Authority has not accounted for the interconnectedness of the British steel industry, nor the impact of safeguard tariffs being maintained in the US and EU, when recommending the abolition of nine of the 19 existing safeguards on steel products; accordingly requires the Government to take urgent action by legislating to allow Ministers to reject the Trade Remedies Authority’s recommendation and temporarily extend the current safeguards; and orders that, at the sitting on Monday 28 June, Standing Order No. 14(1) shall not apply, and that precedence at that sitting shall be given instead to any Business of the House motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition which may be moved at the commencement of public business that day to make provision for urgent legislative action to protect the vital interests of the British steel industry.
The motion before us disagrees with the recommendations of the Trade Remedies Authority to revoke half the current safeguards protecting our nation’s steel industry against potential floods of cheap imports. It requires the Government to bring forward emergency legislation, allowing them to reject those recommendations and extend all the current safeguards before they expire on 30 June. Finally, it makes provision for the Leader of the Opposition to enable the emergency legislation to be considered next Monday if the Government fail to do so themselves.
It is a pleasure to open this debate. It is a testament to the urgency and importance of the issues before us that so many Members have registered to speak. For that reason, I will not be taking many interventions. I believe that there are 24 Labour Back Benchers alone who want to contribute.
We all recognise that the livelihoods and futures of steel communities across our country will be directly affected by the decisions taken in Westminster this week, but it is the motion before us tonight that creates the possibility that those decisions will be the right ones. That is a heavy responsibility on our shoulders and it is therefore incumbent on us all to treat this debate with the seriousness that it deserves. That is why it is a source of regret that the one person whose decisions will matter above all in Westminster this week—the Secretary of State for International Trade—has chosen not to be here this evening.
After all, it is the Secretary of State’s Trade Remedies Authority—appointed, empowered and inspired by her—that has made the misguided recommendations that have led to this crisis. It is her powers in relation to those recommendations and her freedom to take other issues into account which are the subject of the motion before us today. Most fundamentally of all, it is her general approach to trade policy and her specific attitude towards the future of the steel industry in Britain that is crucial in determining the final decision that is taken on the retention of these safeguards.
If it were me standing in the Secretary of State’s position, I would want to be here this evening to listen to what the representatives of Britain’s steel communities have to say, particularly as some of those representatives are sitting on her own Back Benches. In her absence, I am going to use my opening remarks to look through each of the three issues I mentioned in turn—first, the role of the Trade Remedies Authority; secondly, the powers of the Secretary of State; and, thirdly, the decisions she now has to take—and try to develop a consensus in this House not just in support of this vital motion, but on how the Secretary of State should approach the crucial days ahead.
Let me start with the role of the Trade Remedies Authority and the reason for its flawed recommendations. There is nothing worse, in life or politics, than people being wise after the event, but in respect of the Trade Remedies Authority it is very much a case of predictions coming to pass. Four years ago, my hon. Friends the Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) warned the Government consistently during the first attempted passage of the Trade Bill that their vision for the new TRA was misguided. Exactly 13 months ago, when the Trade Bill returned for a second time, I stood at this Dispatch Box and followed their previous lead, describing the TRA as
“a vital body with a vital task”
but one that was not representative of the business and workers that it was being set up to defend. “No wonder”, I said 13 months ago,
“there are such concerns and suspicions that the Government’s true agenda for the TRA is not to defend Britain against underpriced imports, but somehow to balance the damage they do to domestic producers against the perceived benefits for domestic consumers.”
I said back then:
“That is not the job of the trade remedies authority.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2020; Vol. 676, c. 616.]
I stand by that statement, even more today now that we have seen this new body in action. If we were in any doubt about the misguided sense of mission that is driving the TRA, we had all the confirmation that we needed last week from the new chair and the new chief executive, who were personally selected by the Secretary of State from the senior ranks of the Department for International Trade. In their joint interview with the Financial Times, they explained that, under their leadership, the TRA would always seek to set the lowest safeguards possible, deliberately lower than any EU equivalent, and that this approach would be quite distinct from countries
“which impose swingeing tariffs to protect particular industries.”
They boasted that the TRA had already scrapped more than 50 of the safeguard tariffs carried over from the European Union, and that they intended to consider only around four cases per year where new safeguards might be required, which is a quarter of the amount being pursued each year by Brussels. They concluded that the TRA was
“suited to a buccaneering global Britain”
that would favour free trade over the protection of domestic industries. If anyone were wondering how the TRA can possibly have come to the conclusions that it has when it comes to maintaining Britain’s steel safeguards, the answer is that the men in charge are simply doing what they were appointed to do by the Secretary of State.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for taking my intervention and for the point that she is making; I agree fully with what she is saying. Does she agree that it is the complete opposite of taking back control that the Secretary of State cannot even amend the recommendations of this authority and that, basically, it is faceless bureaucrats who are determining Government policy?
Emily Thornberry
The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I will be developing that point in a few minutes.
Emily Thornberry
I will take one more intervention, especially from the hon. Gentleman whose constituents will want to know what he has to say this evening.
Jacob Young
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. Can she be clear in the point that she is making? Is she questioning the independence of the TRA and would she rather have a politically affiliated body determining trade policy?
Emily Thornberry
I would rather that we had a body that looked after the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and defended the steel industry.
Even so, let us not forget a fundamental flaw at the heart of the TRA’s recommendations: the failure to understand that the safeguards put in place by the EU were deliberately intended to provide comprehensive protection across the steel industry as a whole, recognising that if one product line is exposed to cut-price imports, the competitiveness of the whole industry is immediately undermined. The TRA has either not understood that basic concept or has deliberately chosen to ignore it. Either way, I defy anyone in this House tonight to argue that the TRA’s recommendations must be considered sacrosanct either because of its objectivity or because of its expertise. I am afraid that if Members read the Financial Times interview or studied its conclusions on steel safeguards, it is clear that the TRA has been found sorely lacking on both fronts, as many of us predicted that it would
That brings me to the second of the three major issues before us this evening. If the TRA’s recommendations are flawed, what can the Secretary of State do about it? As the House will be aware, as the legislation stands, it does not allow the Secretary of State to reject the TRA’s recommendations in order to retain the existing state safeguards. The motion before us proposes emergency legislation, allowing the Secretary of State to do exactly that. The reason that we would argue that such an unusual move is a necessity is not just because of the urgent need to stop those steel safeguards expiring at the end of the month, but because this review process has exposed three fundamental problems in the remit of the TRA’s investigation that cannot have been intended by Parliament.
First, it makes no sense whatsoever for the TRA to look at the UK’s safeguards on steel in isolation from what the rest of the world is doing with theirs and from what is happening in global steel markets. Let us consider the position that we are at present: eight of the world’s 10 largest steel markets have safeguards currently in place, with the US and the EU recently confirming that they are certainly keeping theirs. At the same time, China is heading towards the 1 billion tonne mark for annual production and still has more than 300 million tonnes in spare capacity. In that context, it would be utter madness to remove half our current safeguards and expose our country to a flood of cheap imports from China and elsewhere at exactly the time that those suppliers are desperately hunting for an unprotected market. Yet the TRA has not given any consideration to the international context, because it is apparently not in its remit to do so.
Secondly, it makes no sense whatsoever for the TRA to conduct an economic test on the need for these safeguards that does not take into account the impact of removing them on the 34,000 well-paid, good-quality skilled jobs for steelmakers in Wales, Yorkshire and Humberside, the midlands, the north-east and elsewhere, and the 42,000 more in supply chain roles. These are exactly the kinds of jobs in exactly the kind of communities that the Government keep telling us are essential to level up our country, and yet the direct threat to those jobs and communities that dropping our safeguards would create is not one of the factors considered by the TRA, because it is apparently not in its remit to do so.
Thirdly, it makes no sense whatsoever for the TRA to make recommendations affecting the British steel industry without considering the knock-on implications for our defence procurement programmes, for the construction of critical national infrastructure, and for the delivery of our net zero emission targets. All those major considerations for the Government will be dramatically altered depending on whether we are producing the majority of our steel we need here in Britain or importing it from abroad. Yet the potential impacts of its recommendations on those different areas were not among the factors considered by the TRA, because apparently it was not in its remit to do so.
That leaves us with a fundamental dilemma: either the TRA’s remit needs to change so that it can consider the global context for its recommendations and take into account their impact on our jobs, communities and regions, our national defence, our civil infrastructure and our climate change objectives, or, alternatively, the Secretary of State’s powers need to change to allow her to weigh up all those factors against the TRA’s analysis and make a decision, with Parliament’s approval, based on our overall national interest, on what is best for Britain. Which of those two options would be better is a discussion for another day, but one thing that we should be certain of now is that the Government cannot proceed with a decision on steel safeguards on the basis of recommendations by the TRA that have not even taken into account some of the most crucial factors at the heart of that decision. On that basis alone, I hope that Members in all parts of this House will agree on the need for emergency legislation to allow the Secretary of State to reject the TRA’s recommendations, extend the current safeguards beyond 30 June, and allow time for discussion about the right course of action for the future.
I said at the outset that the third and most fundamental issue affecting our debate today is the approach of the Secretary of State herself to the future of the British steel industry and whether she will accept our invitation to move emergency legislation, if that is how we vote tonight. If you had asked me that question seven years ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would have said yes. Back then, you may remember, the Secretary of State burst on to the political scene with an impassioned cry for us to buy more pears, apples and cheese grown and made here in Britain, and scathing criticism of those who thought that our food production could be outsourced overseas instead. But now she reserves her fury for the British farming industry and all of us in this House who oppose the deal that she has signed to flood our market and undercut our farmers with cheap and cruelly produced Australian meat.
In the past seven years, the Secretary of State has seemingly been fully captured by the free trade dogma that insists on the right of the consumer to choose the cheapest product available from anywhere in the world and rails against any interference with that right, whether it is the maintenance of tariff safeguards to protect domestic producers, concerns about slave labour and human rights abuses, or the cruelty to animals and carbon admissions that are so often the hidden cost of cheap imports. Because the Secretary of State will have no truck with such concerns, she has become the hero of the right-wing free trade think-tanks—the ones that hanker after the supposed improvements in productivity and efficiency if only our NHS was forced to compete, the ones that openly talk about the benefits of destroying the British farming industry so as to end subsidies for wildlife conservation and free up more land for developers, and the ones that inevitably are equally scathing about Government support for the British steel industry or the retention of our safeguard tariffs.
Listen to Mark Littlewood, director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, who said:
“It’s unsustainable for the government to prop up a steel industry which is no longer competitive internationally.”
Listen to Matthew Kilcoyne, deputy director of the Adam Smith Institute, who described Government funding for the steel industry as
“throwing…cash into a burning furnace”.
These are not some obscure figures on the fringes of public life or some right-wing rent-a-quotes trying to get their names into The Telegraph. These are hand-picked members of the Secretary of State’s own strategic trade advisory group—her personal body of external advisers, whose sole representative from manufacturing industry is not from British Steel or Make UK, but is the director of JCB construction, and guess what? He is the biggest Tory party donor.
These are the voices the Secretary of State is listening to when it comes to safeguarding tariffs, when it comes to protecting British farming and when it comes to protecting British Steel. So no wonder the two acolytes she appointed to run the Trade Remedies Authority think their job is to promote free trade rather than to defend domestic producers, and have recommended this wrong-headed decision on steel as a result, and no wonder the Secretary of State, who said last month that she would do “whatever is necessary” to protect the UK steel industry, will not even attend this debate to discuss how she might go about doing that. If she refuses to act to protect our safeguard tariffs, it will be an unconscionable betrayal of Britain’s steel communities—one that they will never forget and one they will never forgive. What will make it all the worse is that she, her think-tank allies and the Trade Remedies Authority are just plain wrong when it comes to the British steel industry. Opposition Members see a bright future for our steel communities, a green future and a future that creates wealth for our country and well-paid, good-quality jobs in our regions if we have the will to make that future happen.
Emily Thornberry
No, I will not give way at this stage. I am going to finish the speech.
If we do wish to do so in Britain, we can wean ourselves entirely away from the cheap imported steel that causes 50% extra carbon emissions, and instead have a British steel industry that leads the world in the development of hydrogen steel technology and decarbonised steel production, and by doing so leads our country to the achievement of net zero. If we choose to do so in Britain, we can put home-produced steel at the heart of every defence contract and infrastructure project from warships to wind farms, and use British steel to build our way back to full economic recovery. If we choose to do so in Britain, we can make the jobs in our steel industry the foundation for creating thousands more well-paid, good-quality, skilled jobs in other communities that need them, as we apply our skills and strengths in steelmaking to the new opportunities created by the green industrial revolution.
However, to make all those things happen, there is something the Government must contribute. It is just as precious as public funding, but so much easier to provide, and that is a simple injection of certainty and stability. When our steel companies go into the world and seek investment in their future, they must be able to say with total confidence that the British Government have their back, will support them when necessary and will always do whatever it takes to defend them against unfair trade or a surge in cheap imports. That type of certainty and confidence is the minimum that our steel industry has the right to expect from their Government, and if it cannot get that from them, Parliament must seek to provide it instead.
That is the fundamental choice before us all tonight, but especially Conservative Members who may be debating with their conscience which way to vote. Will they side with the communities of Scunthorpe, Cardiff and Sheffield, who see a bright future for their industry, or will they side with the fanatics from the right-wing think tanks who see no future at all? Will they provide our steel industry with the safeguards that it needs to build for the future with confidence, or will they leave it to sink or swim in a flood of cheap imports from China?
I have no idea where the Secretary of State stands on that choice, because she has chosen not even to be here this evening, and has so far refused to take the emergency action that the Opposition have instead been forced to propose on her behalf. But if this House decides overwhelmingly to back the Opposition motion tonight and require the Secretary of State to maintain the safeguards, I believe that by sheer weight of pressure we can force her hand to do so, inject confidence back into our steel industry and forge a path for our steel communities to the brighter future that awaits them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
New roads, track renewals, flood defences, Hinkley Point—the Government are unleashing the potential of our whole country by backing British industry and boosting Britain’s infrastructure. Steel first came to the fore as Britain led the global industrial revolution, and it is today’s infrastructure revolution, underpinned by 7 million tons of steel in the next 10 years here alone, that will see Britain lead the world into the future. Steel remains one of the pillars of British industry and one of the commanding heights of the economy to this people’s Government, and we are committed to championing free and fair trade to the benefit of jobs in every corner of our country.
The Conservatives are moving our great country on, instead of going backwards with the Labour party. We have secured trade agreements with 68 countries around the world, plus the EU, covering trade worth £744 billion last year, and we are just getting started. We are negotiating an agreement with New Zealand, we are working to join the trans-Pacific partnership and we have announced our intent to begin negotiations with India, too. This will put Britain at the heart of a new, dynamic, global trading network, as a hub for investment and exports, securing prosperity for British families and generations to come. That is important because we know that our job is to serve the British people, whether they drive a white van or a hatchback car, and whatever flag they fly from their home.
We fully agree that our steel producers and the livelihoods that they support in every part of our kingdom should be protected from unfair competition. More than that, we want them to be able to export to friends around the world.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Under the last Labour Government, steel production in this country fell by almost 50% to its lowest level since 1934. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party should look at its own record in office rather than criticising this Government?
Mr Jayawardena
I completely agree. Indeed, not only is my hon. Friend right, but the numbers get worse for Labour: in Labour’s last five years in charge, industrial electricity prices rose by two thirds, hitting the steel industry hard. In contrast, we have provided £500 million in relief to the steel industry since 2013 to help it to cope with high electricity costs. We have also fought hard to make sure that the industry does not have to face duties of 25% when we export to the European Union.
We are alert to concerns that China is artificially promoting state-subsidised steel. We can see the impact of such trade-distorting practices today, with the steel market 40% over capacity. The facts show that as we have stepped up to take action, the Labour party has been shuffling its feet. Despite the rhetoric today, in her very first appearance at the Dispatch Box in that role, the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make it clear to the United States that she would not agree a deal with our American friends that would constrain Britain’s ability to negotiate a deal with China. The right hon. Lady was willing to put a deal with China ahead of the deal with the United States.
Whether the Labour party has changed its policy on China or not, this people’s Government have no plans to do a trade deal with China. On the contrary, we have used our presidency of the G7 to rally an alliance of democracies in a battle for the soul of global trade. To win that battle, we want better and more modern rules at the World Trade Organisation, as well as new rules on industrial subsidies. That is why we are working under the G7 trade track, an initiative pioneered by Britain to set the agenda for WTO reform. This will be a tough fight, but it is a fight we must win. People cannot believe in free trade unless it is fair. That is why we need effective rules and tools.
Trade remedies are an important tool in our tool box, and it is right that Britain stands up for her key industries. It is right to have a robust framework in place, and we do. We said that we would get Brexit done and then move on to people’s priorities. We got Brexit done. We got a trade deal with the EU, and now we have transitioned 19 measures from the EU, plus the steel safeguard. Now that we have full control of our trade policy, we can go further to defend British industry and jobs, and take further action where necessary.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is painting a very positive picture. Has any consideration been given to ensuring that every Government contract is carried out using only British-based steel? Not only would that secure local jobs for local people, but I believe it would send a message that has been lost in our search for a good deal.
Mr Jayawardena
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must champion British steel at every turn. Indeed, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been creating a strong pipeline to ensure that advance notice has been given to industry about the 7 million tonnes of steel that will be required, so that industry can seek the opportunities that lie ahead. The safeguard measures that Labour Members talk about today are only part of the picture with trade remedies. Dare I say that it is not the first time the Labour party has not quite understood international trade?
We must remember that safeguard measures are not intended to address unfair practices, which are the subject of the motion. They are emergency measures intended to tackle unforeseen surges in imports, and they are governed by strict WTO rules. It has been the job of the independent Trade Remedies Authority to investigate whether the steel safeguard measures should be extended, amended or revoked. That independent organisation has followed the evidence, and engaged widely with importers, domestic producers and overseas exporters. Although on Twitter the shadow Business Secretary seemingly does not know the difference between independence and being part of Government, the TRA is independent. This is not the Government’s proposal, and for each commodity covered by the safeguard measures, the TRA has considered whether there is domestic production, whether there is evidence that a surge in imports has caused or threatens to cause serious harm, and whether it is in British economic interests to maintain the measure.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State stated that she was shocked that the TRA had not considered what the impact would be if the restrictions were removed. Under schedule 49(4)(a) of the Trade Remedies (Increase in Imports Causing Serious Injury to UK Producers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, that is precisely what it must consider in its analysis. Does the Minister agree that the right hon. Lady does not know what she is talking about?
Mr Jayawardena
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the lack of attention to detail on the Labour Benches. The approach we have taken forward is in line not only with WTO rules but with our domestic legislation.
I will tell you the truth, Madam Deputy Speaker: the TRA has recommended to the Secretary of State that nine product categories of the existing safeguard measure be removed. It judged that seven of them did not meet the requirement to show a significant increase in imports. Another failed to show any risk of serious injury or injury recurring, and the other did not pass the economic interest test, with industry asking for it to be removed, as the shadow Secretary of State discovered this morning, courtesy of the “Today” programme on BBC Radio 4. The Labour party seems intent on throwing the baby out with the bath water. The TRA recommended retaining the safeguard on 10 other product categories, and that would be exposed to legal challenge if we were arbitrarily to take the sort of decision that the Labour party advocates. Does the Labour party want to leave the WTO and adopt an isolationist approach in the world? I don’t, and I won’t.
Mr Jayawardena
No.
In truth there is a choice between working hard, getting into the detail and defending British interests, which we are doing and will continue to do, and playing politics, as Labour Members and those on the left of our politics seem intent on doing.
It is worth remembering that the TRA was set up in 2018 under the last Government and places strict limits on the powers of the Secretary of State. Of course, the Labour party knows this, because Labour tried to curtail the Secretary of State’s powers even further. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), as shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, spoke against
“the public interest...being used as a mechanism to widen the powers of the Secretary of State.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2018; c. 103.]
During the passage of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, Labour stood against the Secretary of State being able to reject a recommendation of the TRA, but today Labour is asking us to legislate to do just that: to reject the TRA’s recommendation.
Under the legislation from the last Parliament—that dead Parliament—the Secretary of State does not have the power to change the TRA’s recommendation—
Mr Jayawardena
No, the right hon. Lady has had her say.
The Secretary of State does not have the power under the law to change the TRA’s recommendation on the safeguard measure to retain measures against its advice. She possesses only a downward ratchet, which means either accepting the TRA’s recommendation in its entirety or rejecting it and seeing every part of the safeguard measure expire on 30 June. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State takes these responsibilities very seriously and will reach a decision on the recommendation and publish it before the measure is due to expire.
Emily Thornberry
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is he in favour of these recommendations? Does he think they are a good idea or not?
Mr Jayawardena
I will come to the Secretary of State’s position and the process that will follow in a moment, but I must be clear—
Mr Jayawardena
The right hon. Lady did not answer the earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) either.
Extending the deadline for a decision is not an option, and extension of the safeguard on product categories would expose Britain to challenge from other member countries of the WTO for non-compliance with the agreement on safeguards, which, as I warned a moment ago, may lead to a WTO decision requiring the United Kingdom to revoke the measure in its entirety.
I thought the Labour party understood these principles. After all, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), the then shadow Trade Minister, criticised President Trump for imposing
“protectionist tariffs that the rest of the world believes are illegal under WTO rules.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 39.]
Maybe that was Labour’s policy then and this is its policy now. Perhaps the Opposition were against the policies of President Trump then and support the policies of President Trump today. Either way, they do not have the British national interest at heart. The Labour party is showing once again that it is a protest party, lacking in competence and understanding of the issues. Labour may have changed its leader, but it poses a clear risk to our country.
Turning to our friends in Europe and America, we continue to have discussions with the steel sector to understand its concerns about the outcome of the EU’s steel safeguard review. We recognise the harm caused by the unfair and unjustified US tariffs levied on our steel industry under section 232. It is fake news to suggest that our steel industry threatens the viability of American steel producers or that it contributes to global excess capacity in the market. Trade barriers such as these are what bring the rules-based international trading system to its knees, yet that is the sort of approach that the Labour party is advocating tonight. We remain disappointed at the continued imposition of such tariffs and are pressing our American counterparts for an urgent and permanent resolution. After working to date to de-escalate the Boeing-Airbus dispute by agreeing to suspend retaliatory tariffs for five years, we now want to shift their attention to the unjustified section 232 tariffs and work with them to agree a fair, permanent resolution for British industry.
We will continue to deliver for the British people, and that is why we are reviewing the Secretary of State’s powers already, exploring and consulting on how we might legitimately be able to strengthen them. That is why we are working closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that trade remedies measures are up to date in the current context, not least following the pandemic. In the event of there being increased imports of unfairly subsidised products into the United Kingdom, we will not hesitate to take action to defend the industry using anti-dumping and anti-subsidy tariffs. That shows our resolve to improve our domestic toolkit and to use the tools at our disposal to tackle market-distorting practices, but rushing through changes to legislation, posing a risk to industry in the process, as Labour would have us do, is not the answer.
Mr Jayawardena
No. We should all greatly value Britain’s reputation as a champion of global free and fair trade. We should not want to take actions that risk being found to be non-compliant at the WTO. The Secretary of State takes her responsibilities very seriously in considering the recommendation from the TRA, but the truth is that the best way forward, the right way forward, for our steel producers lies in free and fair trade. Together, we can make sure that this vital British industry enjoys a sustainable long-term future. The British people should be in no doubt: this people’s Government are backing our steel manufacturers; this people’s Government are backing the tens of thousands of jobs in the industry; and this people’s Government will continue to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, I remind colleagues that there is a three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. If colleagues take less than three minutes, more people will get in—at the moment, not everyone will get in. I should also say that if colleagues choose to take interventions, I would be grateful if they still stuck to three minutes. Thank you. I call Marion Fellows, for the SNP.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I was eager to take part in this debate, as steel is a subject close to my heart. I have a steel plant in my constituency: Dalzell Steelworks in Motherwell, which was saved by the Scottish Government in 2016 when it was sold on by Tata Steel. At that time, I was a member of two steel taskforces, one organised and led by the UK Conservative Government, and the second by the SNP Scottish Government. The UK steel taskforce talked a lot about the importance of steel and what it would like to do to help the industry. Despite that, Redcar steelworks and other locations closed, and approximately 20,000 steel jobs have been lost over the years.
We were told it was the fault of the EU, and there was nothing we could do about the high cost of energy or to stop the imports of cheap steel that were so dangerous to our industry in the UK. Well, here we are in 2021, and what has happened? A recent report from UK Steel shows the significant electricity price disparity the UK steel sector still faces compared with its European counterparts, paying an extra £54 million in energy costs compared with German steelmakers. Over the past five years, the price disparity has cost the sector £254 million, or 130% of annual capital investment.
The report, “Closing the Gap”, shows the huge structural barrier facing the UK steel sector as it faces the core challenges of adapting to a trading environment outside the EU and trying to recover in the aftermath of the pandemic, and embarks on the major challenge of decarbonisation. The report makes a powerful argument for the UK Government to put forward a bold programme of support for the sector, to level the playing field. Consistently higher UK electricity prices increase production costs, reduce available capital and deter inward investment, severely reducing the sector’s ability to invest. Gareth Stace, UK Steel’s director, said:
“Our new report plainly demonstrates UK steelmakers face systemic disadvantages in higher electricity prices than our competitors… Electricity is one of the biggest costs for the steel industry, it undermines our competitiveness and it damages our ability to invest… And the issue is becoming even more urgent with the growing need to rapidly decarbonise”.
UK Steel says the UK Government need to be “bold and decisive”. It would be hard to describe this Government as such in relation to steel.
Scotland did not vote for Brexit, yet the Tories are using it to remove vital protections from our steel industry. At the end of last year, the UK transitioned the EU’s steel safeguards, retaining vital protection against trade diversion and import surges for 19 steel products produced in the UK. Over the course of the past six months, as we have heard, the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate has been reviewing the measures to see whether they should be extended. Now, the preliminary decision by the Department for International Trade is to remove a large number of products from so-called import safeguards designed to protect domestic producers from a flood of cheap imports. According to UK steel, this needs to be urgently rethought. Under Tory plans, the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate —an arm’s length body of the Department for International Trade—recommended extending the measures on 10 categories of imports for three years from next month and suggested that measures on nine categories be revoked. The British steel industry has hit out at these plans—these are the folk who make steel, Minister—describing them as a “hammer blow” that risks damaging the sector long term. It said:
“The UK will become a magnet for huge volumes of steel imports, it is beyond worrying to consider the damage this could do to the UK steel sector and its long-term viability”.
Alasdair McDiarmid, operations director of the steelworkers’ union Community said:
“This is the first test of the government’s commitment to our steel industry post-Brexit and they’re failing it”.
UK Steel said that the removal of protections will have an adverse impact on the manufacture of steel sections across the country. It added that the measures were designed to protect the
“viability of an entire industry, not individual production lines”.
Jonathan Edwards
Once again, the hon. Lady is making a fantastic speech in defence of the steel industry. The key point seems to be that the US and the EU are maintaining their safeguards. We know that there is a massive oversupply of steel being produced around the world; I think the figure in 2019 was 514 million tonnes. If the British state removes our safeguards, it does not take a brain surgeon to work out where some of that steel is going to be arriving.
Marion Fellows
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He actually did the next part of my speech, so I can move on and let more Back Benchers in.
It is quite hard to talk about global Britain when a UK foundation industry, such as steel, is being put to the wall by a Government who seem not only not to understand manufacturing but to think that it is okay to allow a foundation industry to try to compete with both hands tied behind its back. The UK Government said that they wanted to “take back control” from bureaucrats, but they are allowing the TRA, an unelected body, to make shattering decisions on the steel sector. This is a Government just like Thatcher’s Government, who closed Ravenscraig in my constituency. The UK Government have the power to protect steel jobs, but they are actively undermining steelworkers and the steel sector and risking jobs. Boris Johnson is finishing off Thatcher’s mission to destroy Scotland and the rest—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The hon. Lady should not really refer to the Prime Minister by name; she should say “Prime Minister”.
Marion Fellows
I am sorry—the Prime Minister is finishing off Thatcher’s mission to destroy Scotland and the rest of the UK’s industrial base.
Contrast that with what the Scottish National party Scottish Government have done for steel in Scotland. The Scottish steel taskforce was set up at the same time as the UK taskforce, or a few months later, to save the Dalzell works and the Clydebridge plant. From day one, the focus was on making these plants productive again. The Lanarkshire steelworks had closed in 2015 and the Fort William smelter was poised to close before the Scottish Government interventions in 2016. The Scottish Government helped Liberty Steel to reopen Dalzell, and direct job numbers have recovered. In Lochaber, 165 direct jobs have been saved—not many, but in Lochaber, that is a huge number of jobs—and 44 new jobs were created by the GFG Alliance.
The Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise supported Liberty’s acquisition of Dalzell and Clydebridge steelworks. Scottish Enterprise provided support through a £7 million commercial loan to Liberty Steel and the business has successfully re-entered the heavy steel plate market. Scottish Enterprise recognises the challenging environment for businesses in Scotland right now and the significant economic benefit that Liberty Steel brings in terms of jobs, the supply chain and the future safeguarding of Scotland’s steel industry. Scottish Enterprise is in discussion with Liberty Steel on repayment of the loan funding, and, of course, debt forbearance is not uncommon in the current market.
The GFG Alliance has said that its Scottish businesses are performing strongly and have access to sufficient resources for their current needs. There has been no call on the Government guarantee and the Government receive a fee from the business for providing the guarantee, and the guarantee is backed by security over its assets. In Scotland, there is political will to support the steel industry. Where is that will in the UK Government? It appears that this UK Government are happy to give a hand to their cronies, but are willing to allow steel, a foundation industry, to founder under unfair competition and high energy prices. There is a reluctance to help an industry that provides decent, well-paid jobs and that could supply steel for the green energy industry and infrastructure for recovery after this coronavirus pandemic.
Finally, will the Minister be added to the list of his predecessors who talked a good game, but refused to actually help the steel sector? Minister, we are waiting.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I will take the few short minutes available to me to highlight the need to promote the production of clean steel, which can play a key role in the covid recovery, levelling up and decarbonisation. With COP26 rapidly coming into view on the horizon, there is an opportunity for the UK to be a global leader in this sector.
In the next few years, there will be an enormous increase in the demand for steel, and that is already manifesting itself in significant price increases. In East Anglia and off our coast, steel will be required for the largest array of offshore wind farms in the world, for the building of the Sizewell C nuclear power station and the cabling required for renewing and extending our grid.
However, we must not ignore the environmental impact of steel production, as the industry contributes up to 7% of the world’s CO2 emissions. The rapid emergence of hydrogen, which has quickly evolved from the new kid on the block to the energy sector’s Swiss army penknife, provides the UK with the USP for promoting clean steel, whether from carbon capture, offshore wind or nuclear power. The volume of hydrogen needed for steel production is of reasonable proportions to match either blue hydrogen or green hydrogen.
East Anglia, as you are well aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, is not an established centre for the steel industry, but we are uniquely placed to play a major role in the changing face of domestic steel production due to ready access to low-carbon energy sources, whether offshore wind through carbon capture for the existing gas infrastructure focused on Bacton, or Sizewell C. It is also important that in the supply chain we promote and develop fabrication hubs in places such as Lowestoft, where skills and expertise have been built up in shipbuilding and the oil and gas industry for well over a century.
The Government are laying the foundations for a world-leading clean steel industry with the 10-point plan, the industrial decarbonisation strategy and the industrial fuel switching competition. It is vital that they now build on that work, announce the findings of the call for evidence for the clean steel fund and bring forward the following policy initiatives: first, a border carbon adjustment on imported goods based on their carbon content; secondly, the setting of clear targets for the use of clean steel by specific dates in infrastructure projects; and, finally, the promotion of a clean steel demonstrator project. It is also important that the forthcoming hydrogen strategy provides the framework for the industry to develop in East Anglia.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The heart of the issue that we are debating today is the Government’s power, or willingness, to intervene in the national interest. The Conservative party told the public that voting for Brexit would mean that we took back control. Instead, since Brexit, the Conservatives have scrapped the industrial strategy, failed to secure a slot in the Queen’s Speech to reform state aid, failed to improve public procurement rules and boxed themselves into a corner by failing to reform the rules of the Trade Remedies Authority, as we have heard this evening. These issues are now putting jobs in the steel industry at risk, as the steel industry tells us, at a time when the sector is once again in peril as it swings from steel crisis to steel crisis.
The long-running pressures on UK steel are well known—high energy prices, high business rates and global competition from countries that undercut the price of British steel—but the importance of the steel sector to the UK is also well known, from protecting highly-skilled, well-paid jobs in communities that rely on the industry, to being able to buy domestic sources of steel, which need to be low-carbon.
The Government, however, have failed to do anything helpful on these issues. In fact, they have made things worse by publishing an industrial decarbonisation strategy that once again does not have sufficient buy-in from the Chancellor to help businesses to make the changes they need. Now, to make things even worse, the Minister tells us that the Government cannot do anything to stop the Trade Remedies Authority scrapping tariff safeguards, at a time when we all know that huge gluts of cheap steel are waiting to be exported from countries such as China.
I am going to be unusually generous to the Government, because I believe the Minister knows he is in trouble, which is why he barely touched on this motion in his speech. I think the Business Secretary knows all of this and he wants to do something about it, but, much like when Downing Street mounted a coup and took industrial policy from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Business Secretary and the Ministers here seem not to have the authority or power to act. That is why repeatedly the Business Secretary has said that it is the International Trade Secretary’s responsibility to sort this out. I note that neither of them is here this evening.
In a letter to me, the International Trade Secretary said, “We will not hesitate to defend UK industry and we will be working across government to ensure the UK can defend its vital interests.” It is the Government’s lucky day, because our motion gives them that opportunity to bring forward the emergency legislation they need to reject the TRA’s recommendations and to temporarily extend the tariff safeguards until fuller reforms can be brought before the House. So this is a real test for the Government, given everything the Conservative party has told us about Brexit, levelling up and protecting British industry. The Government have the power to intervene—the question is whether the Conservative party will do so.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak up for our fantastic steel industry in West Bromwich East and the wider country. Steel has always been very important to the Black Country. The industrial revolution brought with it huge technological changes that the Black Country capitalised on, allowing cast-iron and steel to be produced at a cheaper price than wrought iron. Steel is part of our identity, and the communities that grew around West Bromwich, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Dudley were home to the families that drove the furnaces day and night—"Black by day, red by night”, as the saying goes. We are proud of our industrial heritage in my part of the Black Country. Indeed, steel, iron and industry are what our regional flag is all about, and I know that the people of the Black Country are incredibly proud of that.
As we know, this debate is about not just the economic benefits of producing steel, but the future of the industry and the many thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on its success. That is why I was in many ways surprised to see this as a subject of an Opposition day debate, given the strong commitments this Government have made to the steel industry. Interestingly, employment in the UK steel industry was cut by more than a half under Labour. The Office for National Statistics says that jobs in the steel industry fell by more than half between 1997 and 2010. By stark contrast, the proportion of steel procured within the UK nearly doubled in 2020 compared with the year before, with 77% of steel used in public projects now being procured from the UK. I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the plans to ensure that our domestic steel industry is at the heart of the Government’s plans to build back better after the pandemic.
I am also impressed by the launching of the steel procurement taskforce, helping the industry to compete for public contracts. Meeting regularly over the coming year, the taskforce aims to explore what the Government and industry can do to address challenges that the sector is facing in competing for and securing public contracts. That is a common-sense approach. It would however, be remiss of me not to mention the situation with Liberty Steel, which has been an incredibly worrying episode for many of my constituents and their families.
I have already spoken about this situation, but I really hope for a positive resolution to it soon and call again for the protection of jobs in West Bromwich. I have spoken to the Business Secretary about this directly on many occasions and want once again to place on record my personal thanks to him for his regular engagement and his commitment to the industry. Re-establishing the UK Steel Council and creating the £250 million clean steel fund to help the sector adapt to new challenges, such as decarbonisation, is absolutely the right way forward. Later this year, the Prime Minister will be looking to secure firmer climate target agreements when he hosts the COP26 summit in Glasgow, so I implore the Government to engage with industry leaders and stakeholders ahead of the summit to bring the entire steel industry with us on this decarbonisation drive.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I support the motion to bring forward emergency legislation to give Ministers powers to reject the TRA’s recommendations and temporarily extend all 19 steel safeguards so that they do not expire at the end of June, and allow time to find a long-term solution to protect the British steel industry.
The steel industry is vital to our economy and the idea that it does not have a future is unthinkable. Our steelworkers are as robust as the steel they produce. They have bounced back from every adversity they have encountered, but the situation is about to get much worse as the industry faces a potentially catastrophic existential threat. Under current legislation, the Secretary of State can accept the TRA recommendations and we lose nine safeguards, or reject them and we lose all 19. That is so wrong. Dropping nine safeguards will open up our market to thousands of tonnes of cheap steel imports with no defences to stop it. That will have dire consequences for every steelworks because of the interconnectedness of the industry.
Steel is at the centre of everything we build. Railways, schools and hospitals all need high-quality British steel, as do the aerospace, agriculture, automotive, defence and construction supply chains, too. The British steel industry produces 7 million tonnes of crude steel every year, 70% of the UK’s annual requirement of which 96% is recycled again and again, and it makes a £2.1 billion direct contribution to UK GDP. Some 33,700 people are directly employed, with an average annual salary of £34,299, and 42,000 people work in the supply chain. Steel is vital for building green technologies of the future, such as wind turbines, and steel is helping the UK to achieve net zero by going through its own decarbonisation process.
The global oversupply of steel, plus unfair trading practices from China, have added to problems facing UK steel producers. The UK Government have not supported the industry during the pandemic, despite demand for steel dropping by 16% in 2020: no emergency support, no support in the last Budget, not mentioned in the plan for growth, not procuring British steel, and holding back funds from the clean steel fund until 2023. It is astounding that the UK Government would provide open access to our steel market. The UK Government need to stop pretending that there is nothing they can do, and support our motion to legislate to keep all 19 safeguards and stand up for steel.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
This debate is very important to my constituents. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees), as both her constituency and mine border Aberavon, where the Port Talbot steelworks are located. There is a huge amount of employment in Bridgend dependent on those steelworks, either directly or indirectly.
I agree with those who say that the Government should do all they can to support the steel industry. It is also true that the industry has faced a multitude of challenges that predate covid. In fact, some are more historical than that. I encourage Opposition Members to look at what happened to the industry between 1997 and 2010, when the production of steel in this country halved and we went from approximately 70,000 people working in the industry in 1997 to just over 30,000 in 2010, a fall of 56%.
The Opposition are correct that overseas steel has had a negative impact on the British steel industry and that our British industries should not be undermined by unfair competition from overseas, especially by the dumping of steel often reported to have come from China, but their proposals to simply reject the TRA’s recommendations would result in all the current safeguards being revoked. It would breach World Trade Organisation rules and open the UK up to legal retaliation from other members. Not only is that counterintuitive, but it is quite the opposite of championing our British industries and reviving the UK steel industry.
There is a need to revolutionise the steel industry in the UK towards the economy of the future. Decarbonisation is clearly key to that. Through the clean steel fund, provided by the UK Government, the industry will adapt to the challenges of decarbonisation while continuing to manufacture world-renowned steel. However, adapting to the future green economy brings with it new challenges as well. For example, electric arc furnaces reduce carbon emissions, but there is a huge concern locally in my constituency about the impact on local jobs of moving to that technology. Although we must work to forge a greener industry, we must also continue to support the steelworkers.
The ways to support the British steel industry are multifarious and there is clearly no one solution to restoring the industry to its former glory, but I strongly feel that one important way of building back better is to champion our industries, especially British steel, when it comes to procurement. The £640 billion levelling-up infrastructure campaign will require millions of tonnes of top-quality steel. We simply must procure that right here in the UK, so that investment in British infrastructure also means investment in British jobs.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]
One of the reasons that I spent so many hours in Committee opposing the Trade Bill in the previous Parliament was to avoid precisely the sort of nonsense that we are discussing today. The recommendation by the TRA to remove safeguards on nine out of 19 product categories takes us back five years to the crisis that we experienced in 2016. It will leave half of steel products exposed to a flood of imports. We know this because prior to the introduction of the current steel safeguards, UK imports of steel increased by 25% between 2013 and 2017, severely undermining our own industry.
The Government failed to ensure that the TRA would protect and defend British producers. They engineered the membership of the body such that not only does the Secretary of State maintain full control of who is appointed and what its remit will be, but no voice can even be raised to temper the Government’s dogmatic fixation on what their own warped vision of free trade happens to be.
Labour tabled a series of amendments to ensure a level playing field for British industry. The Government voted down every single one of those amendments—and now where are we? We are left with a whole industry that is rightly angry and confused: confused as to why trade unions and employers were not consulted at any stage in respect of the TRA recommendations; confused as to why the TRA has shown such a lack of understanding about the interconnectedness of the industry, as assessment of product categories separately cannot provide an accurate picture of the threat of an increase in imports, nor the damage that it would cause; confused as to why out-of-date data was used that does not include volumes of smaller imports, where there was an increase in 17 of the 19 product categories that the TRA has simply not accounted for; and confused as to why, at a time when the EU and US are maintaining their safeguards, we are stripping ours away.
This decision will leave our market open to import surges just as the sector recovers from covid-19, and at a time when our exports to the EU and US will still be subject to tariffs and quotas. It is reported that the EU and the US are in bilateral negotiations to end tariffs on steel products with a deadline of the end of the year. So, well done to the Secretary of State—it looks as if she has engineered a situation where our steel exporters will not only be undermined in their own domestic market by cheap subsidised steel from China and the far east; they will also face a 25% tariff to enter the US, just as their EU competitors will face no barriers at all. The incompetence is staggering.
The sector employs 33,000 people. It is a sector that communities and towns are built around. It is a sector that is highly innovative and has continually bounced back from crisis after crisis—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech. We must move on because I need to get as many people in as possible.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) [V]
I am aware that many learned colleagues wish to speak this evening, so I will get straight to the point and will keep my remarks specific to the TRA safeguards issue.
As colleagues will know, my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary will decide whether to accept the Trade Remedies Authority’s recommendations on steel safeguards. Its recommendations are to remove safeguard protections for almost half of UK steel product categories. As it stands, if she does not accept that recommendation, all safeguard protections will expire by the end of this month, and I accept that her hands are somewhat tied in that regard.
I have put on record my opposition to the TRA’s preliminary recommendations in pretty frank terms, and many colleagues have spoken about the issue in Parliament, fed their views back to the TRA and raised the issue with the Department for International Trade. Despite this extensive feedback, a week later the TRA’s final recommendations still overlooked many of the arguments that were made on both sides of the House—namely, that it did not make a sufficiently industry-led assessment, that it did not use International Steel Statistics Bureau data but used data from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs instead, and that it did not sufficiently consider the impact of recent events on the UK steel industry. Reading the final recommendations, it is clear that the TRA is to some degree a hostage of the rigid terms set out in the trade remedies regulations. It is not forward-looking in its assessments and, regrettably, some decisions were made despite the data being insufficient.
I am sure that many across the House will agree that decisions that affect the lives and livelihoods of our constituents cannot be made in that way, and that we now need further proactive solutions to support the steel industry. We must look at whether reform of the Trade Secretary’s powers is required to allow safeguard assessments to be conducted in part by Ministers, who have an understanding of the bigger picture, who are in a position to make decisions about the trade-offs and who are accountable for their decision making. I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his commitment to this issue and for agreeing to meet me. That will be a welcome discussion, and I urge the Government to explore how we can make World Trade Organisation-compliant changes in legislation to allow the Trade Secretary the option to take back control and consider whether it is legally possible to extend our existing safeguards. Speaking plainly, it is clear to me that when the EU is set to keep all 19 of its steel safeguards and we are set to keep only 10, that risks putting us at a disadvantage.
I was born in Scunthorpe, and I was there in 2018 and 2019 when the steelworks were at huge risk. I saw at first hand how much effort and funding the Conservative Government put in place to support jobs, and my words tonight are not a comment on the Government’s previous support for steel; they are a comment on the TRA’s recommendations and on how we react to them. They are a plain ask of the Government to help the steel industry again, because I believe that their instinct is to support the steel industry. No one in this country can go a single day without steel. It is a special case: it is a foundation industry and it affects my constituents, and I will work with right hon. and hon. Members from across the House to fight for the interests of steelworkers in Scunthorpe.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is refreshing to follow the speech by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). She has a choice tonight. She can vote for this motion, which would provide the ability to take action to introduce emergency legislation, and stand up for her constituents in Scunthorpe. It has been sad to hear some other Members who seemed to be falling in line with their Whips.
The House will be aware of the Celsa steelworks in my constituency, and I pay tribute to the management and all the workers there and to the trade union Community across south Wales. GMB and Unite do so much to stand up for steelworkers, and I declare my interest in relation to the GMB. I also pay tribute to UK Steel. I must also acknowledge the sensible co-operation between the UK Government and the Welsh Government in support of the steelworks in my constituency during this past difficult year, and that is why it was so disappointing to hear such a weak, vacuous and petty speech from the Minister, whom I like personally. His speech will have disappointed steelworkers and steel communities up and down the country, because it simply failed to engage with the issues that they and their industry are facing, or with the challenges to the thousands of jobs not only in those plants but downstream in critical manufacturing and infrastructure projects that depend on British steel.
The steel that is produced in my constituency’s plant is crucial to British national infrastructure, to defence projects, to infrastructure projects such as Crossrail and Hinkley, and to our rail infrastructure. If it is put at risk, as it has been so many times in the past, by cheap imports flooding in from places such as China, Iran and Turkey, that will be an absolute absurdity, not least because our steel is produced in an electric arc furnace from recycled steel in one of the most clean and efficient processes. Why on earth would we want that to be substituted, to see our carbon emissions offshored to China, to see our high-quality steel replaced at the heart of British national infrastructure projects by lower-quality steel from China? What an absurdity that would be, both for jobs in this country and for our national security.
The TRA’s decisions simply do not make sense. Let me give one brief example. Rebar, which is produced in the plant on my patch, is produced in straight lengths and in coils. Straight lengths would be covered by the proposed safeguards, but coils would not be, and would be substituted, yet they are both produced in exactly the same way. All that would happen is that the quota would be used up on the straight lengths and then loads of coil would flood in. That is an absolute absurdity. It is dangerous for our national infrastructure, for our sovereignty and for our national defence, and I cannot understand why the Government are not willing to take action on that. They are letting down workers up and down the country: in Ashfield, in Scunthorpe, in Corby, in West Brom and in south Wales in places such as Bridgend, instead of taking action at this critical time. We do not want to go back to that crisis of the past when there is an opportunity for steel to be at the heart of our future.
I finish by saying this: the Minister proudly has the Union Jack on his mask, but I want to see the Union Jack stamped on the steel being used at the heart of our national infrastructure, made by British workers for British infrastructure. That is the choice that the Government have tonight.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Now then, surely even the Labour party will realise that as we embark on our £640 billion infrastructure campaign we are going to need lots of British steel. We are going to need about 7.6 million tonnes over the next 10 years to build new wind farms, power stations, schools, hospitals, railways and flood defences. We have a record to be proud of: we have provided more than £500 million in relief to the steel industry since 2013, to help it to cope with high electricity costs; we are launching a £350 million industrial energy transformation fund to help businesses with high energy use, including in the steel industry; and we have doubled the proportion of steel procured from within the UK over the past year.
Under Labour, steel production fell by almost 50% and employment in the UK steel industry was cut in half. Industrial electricity prices rose by 66% in the last five years under the Labour Government, crippling the steel industry. Labour MPs complained when we announced new freeports, but they will use a massive amount of British steel and be a welcome boost to large engineering companies such as Abacus Lighting and Caunton Engineering in Ashfield and Eastwood. And they were whingeing about the new royal yacht, which will be made from British steel by British shipbuilders, and will then sail around the world promoting our great country.
Perhaps the Minister will support my idea of building a brand-new yacht for the Labour party. We could call it the HMS Clueless and the skipper would be Labour’s Captain Hindsight, who would lead a motley crew of out-of-touch Labour MPs on a cruise around the world, stopping off at countries that subscribe to their brand of socialism. The first stop would be Cuba, and it would then be off to Venezuela and then North Korea. But there is mutiny in the air and I feel that Captain Hindsight will have to walk the plank, because below deck the Mayor of Greater Manchester is plotting to take back control of the Labour party and, as usual, poor old Captain Hindsight will not even see it coming.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
What a ridiculous speech we just heard; let us get back to reality.
On 19 May, only 19 days after the passing of the Trade Act 2021, which updated the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, the Secretary of State, who failed to amend the Trade Bill, said:
“The rules of the TRA were set in legislation in 2018, and I think we are in very different times now. We have had a global pandemic. We are much clearer about the issues of supply chains. I have briefed the Committee”—
the International Trade Committee, on which I serve—
“on…the way we are analysing critical goods.”
She went on to say that she would review the case of the TRA and see whether additional safeguards were needed. That was in May. A month and more later, what has the Secretary of State done? Did she review the safeguards that she acknowledged were weak? Did she change the system that she acknowledged was flawed, under which she can only ratchet down? No, she did not.
Last year, the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who opened the debate on behalf of the Government, said blatantly that the
“system works…It is already delivering in a number of sectors, including steel”.
He must be on a different planet if he thinks it is working! He said that we have the ability “to act very quickly”. If we have the ability to act quickly, Ministers should do something rather than sitting on their hands!
Let us be clear what is happening: the US, the EU and our other major allies are taking action to stop their domestic markets being undermined; we are doing nothing. Just like when the EU took action and we were the ones dragging our heels when we were in the club, now that we are out of the club we are failing to stand up for our own businesses all over again.
I come to a fundamental point of the TRA. This is what the chairman of the TRA said: he has “sympathy” with the points raised around the environment, workers’ rights and extra protections, but he does not believe that the TRA should take any action on those things. He said that the TRA’s guidelines do not allow him to do so. That is the fundamental problem. The Government have dropped the ball—or maybe they are so wedded to the ideology of “free market against protection” that they are willing to sell our steel and other industries down the river. We will not stand for it. We will vote against it.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Changes by politicians to the recommendations of the Trade Remedies Authority is the sort of meddling that the regulations were designed to discourage, because political involvement is too often influenced by lobbying pressure and special interests rather than by the wider benefits to society. The TRA is clear that trade protections should continue where there is evidence of an import surge over the period of investigation and injury to producers. Protection will continue on 82% by volume of currently protected products. Protection is recommended to end only where there has been no import surge at all or where any increase in imports has resulted in no injury to producers. We should not continue protection when no injury has been incurred.
The motion says that, on Monday 28 June, Labour will be prepared to take all the steps necessary for
“urgent legislative action to protect the vital interests of the British steel industry.”
However, that is false for two reasons. First, as analysis by the authority demonstrates, the changes are designed not to affect steel industry participants. The UK steel industry is at risk from dumping arising from chronic global over-supply, but it also suffers from relatively high labour costs, burdensome energy costs, a large green footprint for accessing raw materials and an expensive, unproven and unfunded pathway to a green steel future, none of which is addressed in the motion but all of which is vital for the industry’s future.
Secondly, the Labour motion seeks to align completely the largely private interests of the owners of businesses in the steel industry—some of them are good; some of them are a bit more dodgy—with the interests of UK taxpayers as a whole. Those interests may overlap, but they are not identical. The motion is an incoherent gesture, not a viable strategy for the UK steel industry, demonstrating the superficiality of Labour’s approach to the steel industry, just as Labour’s call to put taxpayers’ money into a firm that is now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office was a few weeks ago.
If the UK wishes to have a vibrant steel industry, it needs the sort of thorough review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is undertaking. Should the industry require additional investment by the UK taxpayer, the case for that will have to stand up well to Treasury scrutiny. The context for the Treasury includes: that the UK economy is already being taxed at its highest rate since the 1960s; that Government debt is already at nearly 100% of GDP; that last year the UK ran its largest ever peacetime deficit of £303 billion; that, worryingly, £303 billion means that we are borrowing one third of all public expenditure; and that, in 2020, the Bank of England bought approximately 80% of that borrowing. Quantitative easing to finance Government expenditure rather than to meet an inflation target is an emergency tactic, not a regular tool of fiscal policy, and the benign period of its availability is coming to an end.
This Parliament needs to start making tough decisions if we are to make space to support our UK steel industry’s green transition. If we can address bigger issues along the lines of infrastructure projects, we can support the green change in the steel industry.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
In recent years, the UK steel industry has lurched from one crisis to another, with a Government who have used every excuse in the book not to step in. For years, we were told that European rules and regulation prevented us from supporting our domestic industry and procuring UK steel. Despite the fact that that was not true—we saw our European partners use their steel in infrastructure projects time and again—in the UK, we had project after project using imported steel, despite alternatives being available.
UK steel makes up only about 10% of UK public sector demand. That is pathetic, but it will not change unless the Government work with UK steel well in advance of major procurements to maximise UK input. Too often, it is an afterthought, or left to the companies delivering the projects, with Government turning a blind eye. The Government are right that the industry needs to modernise and invest in new technologies to meet the challenges of the future, but that is not simply going to happen by some sort of magic. It is no good just saying to an industry that relies on coal and high-energy usage that it needs to change and decarbonise overnight. This industry pays 86% more for its electricity than in Germany and 62% more than in France, and that imbalance is set to get worse rather than better. It is no good saying that hydrogen is the solution to every problem going when we do not have a single facility in the UK, unlike in other countries. The industry will need help and support to meet these challenges and not just warm words and no action, which is what we have seen up until now.
As with energy prices, where the Government refuse to help and just say that it is an issue for Ofgem rather than for them, we now face the major challenge of the TRA judgment making it open season to dump products on the UK. We have seen the results of that dumping for many years. How is our domestic industry expected to survive, let alone compete, in these circumstances? Again we hear from the Minister tonight, “There’s nothing we can do.” Well, that is not good enough. We need to legislate now if we are going to make sure that we can maintain these safeguards and save our industry. Time is not with us and failure to act would be disastrous. Shotton steelworks celebrates 125 years of production this year. Let us hope and trust that there are many more years to come.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) [V]
I am very much in favour of free trade, which contributes to prosperity, innovation and fairness across the world. However, free trade requires a level playing field, and right now the pitch on which our UK steel industry is trying to compete is uphill and full of holes. Our British steelmakers cannot compete on price with foreign manufacturers many of whom have far cheaper energy prices and receive massive state subsidies. Other countries also employ market-distorting practices such as steel dumping, with the deliberate intention of putting British steel manufacturers out of business. That is why we, and the US and the EU, have rightly implemented steel safeguards over recent years to protect domestic industries from unfair and malicious practices that are the very antithesis of free trade. It is therefore incomprehensible that the Trade Remedies Authority is recommending that we allow over half our safeguards on steel products to lapse, at a time when the EU and the US will be maintaining their safeguards in response to the continuing threats to steel producers around the world.
Steel is a critical national industry producing essential materials for our infrastructure and our nuclear and defence capabilities. Steel is therefore crucial to our security. It is also an industry that is vital to our economy. Steel supports over 33,000 jobs, including many hundreds in the Stocksbridge steelworks in my constituency. I know that the Government fully understand this. I am grateful for the frequent engagement of my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary with me on this issue and the welcome commitment of the Minister today to use anti-dumping measures where necessary. I also look forward to meeting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister later this week to discuss this issue further. The recommendations of the TRA could be devastating for UK steel and I am concerned that they are based on the wrong data and fail to take into account the international situation.
We need to take action to retain our steel safeguards. I accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade does not currently have the power that she needs to ensure that that happens. However, the necessary changes are legally complex, and the Opposition’s proposal will breach World Trade Organisation rules and could result in retaliatory tariffs from other nations. Although we must act quickly, we must also be certain to act legally, and a quick Bill thrown together on the back of an Opposition debate is not the proper way to give our steel industry the protection it needs. We cannot afford to get this wrong. Although I cannot support the motion, I do urge the Government to take rapid action to reform the TRA and give new powers to the Secretary of State. In 2016, people in my constituency voted to take back control. That means our democratically elected Government having the final say over our trade policy. The Government must act to back UK steel.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
I am a great believer in trade. I am currently holding a series of DIT-sponsored trade roundtables in my constituency, and as chair of the all-party group for Africa championing the positive power of fair trade. Trade can help lift countries out of poverty, drive innovation and promote sustainable economic development. There is no such thing as free trade in the sense of trade free from political and regulatory choices. What this Government mean by free trade is choosing to pursue the lowest common denominator—low wages, bad processes, environmental destruction, and human rights abuses. There are two important consequences of that. First, our national interest demands a sovereign steel capability, as do other countries’ interests. That is why there is a current glut of steel production, as our competitors, in particular China, ensure that their steel capabilities survive the pandemic and technological change. That is why ideologically puritanical free trade does not work for a sector such as steel, and is at the heart of the Government’s betrayal of the steel industry.
Secondly, because there are always political and policy decisions to be made, it is essential to have workers’ representatives in the room when these decisions are taken, which this Government refuse to do. Without workers’ involvement, global Britain will not be politically sustainable. Last month, I chaired an international TUC-Labour discussion on building a workers’ trade agenda. Trade unions in other countries have considerably more access to trade negotiations. Katherine Tai, President Biden’s new trade commissioner, is an example to follow. She says:
“We know that trade is essential to a functioning global economy. It is clear, however, that the past promises made to workers on trade were not met…The consequences for families when factories closed and jobs were sent overseas were real…It is the result of a long pursuit of tax, trade, labour and other policies that encouraged a race to the bottom.”
The Biden Administration intend to improve workers’ representation in trade policy in the US and in the World Trade Organisation. Furthermore, the recently signed United States, Mexico, Canada agreements include the strongest labour and environmental standards in any agreement. If workers in the US are worried that workers in Mexico are being denied the right to organise, a rapid response on traded goods can follow.
Let me finish by quoting President Biden:
“As we emerge from this pandemic that has exacerbated inequity and put an even greater strain on workers’ families, we have to prove that democracy can deliver. We do that by empowering workers, raising wages, standing up for union rights and holding bad actors accountable when they subject their citizens to forced labour and child labour.”
Why is it that our Government want to sell our steelworkers out to China and preside over a race to the bottom?
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Steel has played an important role in Darlington’s past and is set, thanks to this Conservative Government, to play an important role in our clean, green future. Indeed, Darlington is home to a British steel site, and on its outskirts is the world renowned Cleveland Bridge, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) will say more about.
We all know that steel has heavily influenced our national story whether that be in our railways, our bridges or our ships. Sadly, the industry has been in decline for too long with lost jobs for thousands. Indeed, many of these jobs were lost under the last Labour Government.
I am proud that the Tees Valley has been at the forefront of British steel manufacturing for 170 years and while the old Redcar Steelworks closed in 2015, we have a bright future as the home of the innovation and design sector, on which I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) will expand.
This Conservative Government are delivering where the last Labour Government failed. We are supporting this key industry by directly investing in our national infrastructure, using British steel to help revolutionise our transport and energy sectors. This Government are doubling the amount of steel procured within the UK and using British steel in the £640 billion infrastructure spending. Steel made in Britain will help us to build back Britain as we look beyond the pandemic. HS2, Dogger Bank, Hinkley Point C as well as new schools, hospitals and flood defences across the UK are being built with British steel. I am delighted that Cleveland Bridge, staffed by many of my constituents, will be providing its expertise for many of these projects.
In addition, this Government are helping to decarbonise the sector. That has been achieved by creating a new £250 million clean steel fund, and launching a £315 million industrial energy transformation fund to help businesses with high energy use, helping the industry to cut its bills and emissions. While the Labour party does nothing but talk down the steel sector, failing to support production and jobs, this Conservative Government are supporting the industry, so that British steel is best placed to benefit from the opportunities presented by our new trade deals around the world, and our massive infrastructure investment.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) [V]
My Aberavon constituency is home to the UK’s largest steelworks, employing around 4,000 men and women, and sustaining thousands more jobs through its supply chains. The steelworks are the beating heart of our local economy and community, yet for 10 years, successive Conservative Governments have failed to recognise that the steel industry not only delivers prosperity, but also makes a vital contribution to our country’s security and resilience.
Every military vehicle, major infrastructure project and power station requires steel. Steel enables us to stand on our own two feet as a nation. Homegrown steel is the only route to tackling climate change, and it will play a critical role in greening our economy, from electric cars to solar, wind and tidal power. British production processes have half the carbon footprint of China’s far less decarbonised steel industry, and shipping steel from the other side of the world is obviously more carbon intensive.
That is why Labour Members are clear about our determination to keep all 19 UK steel safeguards. This is not in any way an argument against free and fair trade; it is an argument for free and fair trade, because the “free” without the “fair” is meaningless, and we cannot have one without the other. Global overcapacity in 2019 was estimated to be 514 million tonnes, dwarfing the 10 million tonne UK market. That was largely driven by China, whose steel industry is 80% state owned, and deliberately over-produces and illegally dumps steel to damage western economies. Indeed, only two out of the top 10 steel markets in the world currently have no tariffs or quotas in place. When a tidal wave is about to hit, it makes no sense to remove our flood defences.
This entire process has been a shambles from start to finish. First, too many powers were handed to the Trade Remedies Authority. Secondly, the TRA failed to undertake a responsible process. It failed to use accurate industry figures, to engage properly with industry and trade unions, or to consider the interconnectedness of the industry, and the impact that the removal of those nine safeguards will have on wider business models. That points to a wider fear that the Conservatives’ independent trade policy has nothing to do with supporting UK business to flourish, and is in fact all about removing safeguards and lowering standards, so that the UK can more easily negotiate minor trade deals.
Last week the Government sold out our farmers in desperation to get the UK-Australia deal across the line. Now they are looking to sell out our steelworkers, with the removal of steel import safeguards. Tonight’s vote is a big moment for the Government. Indeed, it is a litmus test of their much-heralded independent trade policy.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. In post-Brexit Britain it is important not to underestimate the importance of the British steel industry to the UK economy. In Sedgefield alone, an array of companies form part of the steel industry’s supply chain, from large international manufacturers such as Cleveland Bridge and Gestamp, to vital local small and medium-sized businesses such as Ebac and Finley Structures.
The steel industry’s supply chain plays a huge role in the local Sedgefield economy and it is therefore essential that the industry is resilient, increasing job security and creating high skilled apprenticeships and jobs for young people. I note the hypocrisy of the Opposition, who wish to debate and comment on what this Government should be doing to support the steel industry, while sitting on a track record of 13 years of Government with no proactive policies to help the steel sector move forward.
The Labour party has historically failed to offer support to such an essential industry. Indeed, when the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was Labour leader, not once did he mention such a pivotal sector to our economy in this place. Industry experts even accused a predecessor of mine, the then Prime Minister, of a deliberate slight against the UK steel industry when in 2002 he put party donors before UK steel manufacturers. The purpose of Government is to act. When Labour was in government it chose not to, but now, when Labour Members do not have to take responsibility for delivery, they are full of instructions.
The Conservative party is different, and I know that this Government are committed to ensuring that UK steel prospers into the future. There is, however, always more that we can do to listen to the needs of the industry and engage with sector leaders to ensure that the Government know exactly what they need to do not only to survive but to build resilience and prosper. I recently held discussions with international steel products manufacturer Gestamp, which employs more 1,000 people at its Newton Aycliffe plant. It has some innovative and progressive ideas about how the Government can help to build industry resilience. I encourage Ministers to visit companies such as Gestamp, which can be really valuable contributors to future policy discussions.
The recommendations of the Trade Remedies Authority are on the desk of our excellent Secretary of State for International Trade, who has been to Sedgefield several times to see at first hand the excellent work of all our local manufacturers. I would encourage her to return and visit those in the steel industry supply chain. I am sure she will give the recommendations the full consideration they deserve, and I look forward to her update to the House.
Building resilient UK supply chains will be vital to our economy in the coming years and decades. The steel industry is one of the most critical and currently contributes £2 billion to the economy. I am sure the Government will take the necessary actions by building upon progressive procurement policies and supporting all of our fantastic steel supply chain, up and down the country.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Steel, as we have heard from so many speakers, is absolutely vital to the UK, and it is good to see that British steel provides 70% of the UK’s annual requirements and is particularly important in a whole range of things. Like other hon. Members, I have manufacturers in my constituency that rely on steel and on the supply of steel, but today I want to touch on the issue of the Trade Remedies Authority.
As we have heard, back in 2017 Labour pointed out the need for a body to regulate trade. However, the current body is not the most suitable one for our steel industry. We warned against the Government creating a Trade Remedies Authority that was unfit for purpose. They did not listen to those warnings, and we are now sadly seeing the consequences of that failure to listen unfold. A Trade Remedies Authority made up of economists and backed by incomplete HMRC data will never be enough to reflect the true complexities and nuances of the steel industry. A Trade Remedies Authority devoid of union input will never be able to truly reflect workers’ voices, with their practical experience of the sector and understanding of British steel. A Trade Remedies Authority without actual industry representatives, such as those working with steel in the UK, will never truly understand the consequences of its decisions or the impact on local communities such as mine.
The TRA as it stands lacks the ideas and experience necessary to tackle the issues that the steel industry faces. That means that it is making skewed recommendations that will drive a race to the bottom, with dangerous consequences for our industry. Its powers of investigation are too narrowly focused. Recommendations on sectors such as steel need to consider the impact on employment, communities, critical national infrastructure and defence procurement. Crucially, they need to understand that what we do in one part of the industry affects the whole. Instead, we have a narrow and blinkered assessment of pricing, supply and demand in individual product categories, with no sense of the wider picture.
This kind of outcome was entirely predictable and avoidable, but fortunately it is not too late. The motion before us allows for emergency action to reject these flawed, narrow recommendations and save our steel industry from the consequences. But even more than that, I hope it will allow the Government to reflect on their approach to the TRA. They must listen to British steel makers and work with Labour to establish a revised trade remedies process, accepting that its remit needs to change.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I will confine my remarks to the three obstacles that the UK steel industry faces. The first, the subject at the heart of today’s debate, is global competition and the impact of tariffs. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates): we support free global trade, but when it comes to steel making, there is currently no free market. Almost every nation that makes steel does so with some form of subsidy or trade barrier, so we need to consider a sensible response.
This is a complex issue, and the conclusions of the independent TRA do not seem to reflect the reality of the interdependence of our industry. The current situation is to the detriment of the UK, so we need to consider how we combat that unfairness. I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister’s comments about reviewing the powers of the Secretary of State.
The second obstacle is UK procurement. It was said in our previous debate that we must build back better, but why not build back British? More than 2 million tonnes of steel are estimated to be used in HS2—let us use UK-sourced steel and make HS2 a project that benefits every corner of the UK, not just London to Birmingham. The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan requires steel for increasing our offshore wind capacity and for building electric cars, carbon capture, utilisation and storage plants and nuclear power plants—let us build them with British steel.
The third obstacle is energy pricing. I am really pleased to see the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth in her place, because we have spoken about the matter many times before. In the steel and chemical industries, energy costs remain uncompetitive in comparison with the continent. These are energy-intensive industries: whether they are producing steel through blast or electric arc technology, or breaking chemical bonds to drive chemical reactions, they need a lot of energy. The problem will only increase as we switch to lower-carbon fuels, so I urge the Government to come forward with a strategy to level the playing field in this area, too.
I commend the Government for their commitment to UK steel so far. The Labour party pretends that the Government do not care about our industry, but if it were not for this Prime Minister—and this Chancellor, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury—we would have barely any steel left in Redcar and Cleveland. It was their commitment to seeing through the sale of British Steel in Lackenby, Skinningrove and Scunthorpe that protected the thousands of jobs that depended on it.
On his visit to Redcar and Cleveland, the Prime Minister said:
“I think British steel is a very important national asset. I think the fact that we make steel in this country is of strategic long-term importance”.
I wholeheartedly agree. I want us to be stronger. We have to be strategic. We need to continue to back our steel industry.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for initiating this crucial debate in Opposition time, which shows that she is giving it the importance that it deserves, and for making such a strong case for the need for emergency legislation to allow Ministers to reject the TRA’s recommendations and temporarily extend the steel safeguards so that they do not expire at the end of the month and we can allow for a longer-term solution. It was a pity that we had such a woeful response from the Minister tonight.
Let us remember that UK Steel called the TRA’s recommendations
“a hammer blow to the UK steel sector”
and to steel communities. I echo what other hon. Members have said about the TRA recommendations. The safeguards are vital if we are to provide a stable environment for the sector and protect against unprecedented import surges from better-protected markets. Slashing those safeguards after Brexit would see the UK become one of the least protected of the major steel markets, undermining our own industry. The EU is maintaining its old steel safeguards, as is the USA. Why, at a time when the global steel market is dealing with overcapacity and looking to recover from the economic shock of the pandemic, are our Government even considering allowing the withdrawal of vital protections for our steel sector?
Steel should be at the heart of our economic recovery. It employs 33,000 people directly and is a strategic industry that is vital to our regional economies. Removing key steel safeguards would simply compound the prevailing challenges that the industry already faces. Our steelworkers, including those at Tata Llanwern, Liberty and Celsa in my constituency, are some of the most experienced and best-skilled in the world, but they already have to compete with one hand behind their back in so many ways, with sky-high industrial energy costs and frankly inadequate UK Government procurement policies. Then there is the whole issue of bonded warehouses, which effectively undercut producers by waiving duties on cheap foreign imports. We need action on that for the Liberty plant in my constituency, currently being undercut by the storage of massive imports of Turkish steel products in bonded warehouses.
When Britain left the EU, this Tory Government made a promise that we would be able to support British industry more than we had done previously and that foundation sectors such as steel would be at the forefront of the Government’s thinking. Unfortunately, here is one of the major tests of our new trading priorities, and the Government are sitting on their hands and pretending there is nothing they can do. How can our steel sites supposedly make a business case to investors for long-term projects such as decarbonising when the Government speak positively about the industry one day, only to strip away protections the next? It is a nonsense. I urge the Government to get their act together and secure a long-term solution on safeguards, which are so important to the industry. There is a motion here today that they could choose to adopt, and in doing so they could help the industry. It is a massive test for the Government, and one our industry cannot afford for them to fail.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
We cannot allow cheap carbon-intensive steel from China to destroy our steel industry and our planet. Over half the steel in the world is now produced by China—the amount has doubled in the last 20 years—and we face a climate catastrophe. British steel uses 50% less carbon, and we have a situation in which, since Kyoto, global emissions have gone up 60% since 1990. The Paris limit of 1.5° C will be breached by 2025, and 8,500 tonnes of ice is melting every second of this debate in Greenland. China is emitting 28% of global emissions, which is more than the US and the EU combined: 7 tonnes of carbon per person, compared with 5.8 tonnes in Britain. On a consumption basis we do 8 tonnes, because we have subcontracted our coal-fired power stations and manufacturing to China. China now has over half the capacity for coal-fired power stations—1,037 coal-fired power stations—and it plans another 300. Its emissions will not peak until 2030, and we do not know what that peak will be. It will only be carbon neutral by 2060, and that is not even net zero.
We must act. We need to have the same tariff safeguards as the EU and the US against the dirty steel the Chinese are dumping. We need to switch to the border adjustment carbon tax being considered by the EU, which factors the carbon price into those taxes, for COP26. We have talked a lot today about the balance between strategic industrial interests and consumer prices, but those consumer prices need to factor in the environmental cost of carbon. It must be in the guidelines for the TRA to make these recommendations, which it is not. Buying more carbon-intensive products—whether steel, manufacturing or agriculture—is destroying our planet. Let us build back greener, reward lower carbon, tax higher carbon in COP26 and remember that, as the US says, we want to make trade a force for good that encourages a race to the top—not just for workers’ rights, but for our environment. Let us build back British steel, let us have a safer planet and let us protect jobs in Wales, in England and beyond.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The TRA’s sole function is to look at data and decide whether to impose trade restrictions to protect the UK steel market from unforeseen surges of imports to ensure fair trade. It is not there to put up protectionist barriers to international trade. Its recommendations are based on detailed research into the UK steel market. So it is not so much the data that Labour challenges—as was made clear earlier this evening, it is the terms of reference given to the TRA. Let us be clear: Labour wants to move to outright protectionism.
Extending tariffs that are not justified by the data shifts the debate from ensuring fair competition, which drives long-term economic growth and prosperity, to outright protectionism, which corrodes markets and makes us all poorer. That is particularly the case with a foundation product such as steel. Labour wants to put up the price of steel for all the manufacturers of the United Kingdom, making their products more expensive and then less competitive. What does Labour suggest when they struggle against cheaper imports—more protectionism? Even its current proposal is so extreme that it would require us to leave the World Trade Organisation. What next? These are the economics of the Soviet Union.
The Government are right to focus on defending fair competition while supporting our steel industry to adopt low-carbon energy sources as we move toward renewable supplies, supporting our producers to the tune of £500 million since 2013 so that our cleaner energy does not disadvantage them. In the long run though, we need to move away from clumsy and expensive state support. Rather than costing our Treasury money to compensate industry, a carbon border adjustment mechanism would raise income from high-carbon imports, providing funds to invest in our own decarbonisation plans. Those are supports that can work within WTO rules, not in flagrant breach of them, as Labour wants.
No longer will our exports be penalised by relatively high energy costs or be undercut in our domestic market by dirty imports. Such a mechanism will allow us to price carbon realistically, unleashing the power of the free market to nose out lower-carbon alternatives as part of the unending price war that real competition brings. That is the kind of policy framework that a serious Opposition would be proposing. If the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) wants to modernise the Labour party, he should start with the Soviet dinosaurs in his BEIS team.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The decision whether to extend safeguards in steel production is the first real test of the UK’s independent trade policy. As of today, it is a test that the Government have woefully failed. The recommendation of TRID, now confirmed by the TRA, is a crushing blow to the UK steel industry, coming at a time when it faces myriad challenges, both long and short term. The recommendation will leave almost half of all UK-produced steel production categories and a third of UK-produced steel by volume at the mercy of import surges, with devastating consequences. The interconnected nature of the industry means that those consequences will be felt across the sector.
Both the US and the EU are almost certain to extend their own safeguards. In contrast, Britain stands ready to open up our own markets, leaving import challenges inevitable; at the same time, our exports will face substantial tariff barriers, placing UK-produced steel at a huge disadvantage in the global markets. For years, the Government have blamed EU rules for their own failure to provide the UK steel industry with the backing it deserves. Now, free from those rules, rather than fighting to protect our industries, the Government are using steel as the canary in the coalmine.
This decision could not come at a worse time for the industry. In Rotherham, my constituents face profound uncertainty. The crisis that has engulfed Liberty Steel has placed steel production in the town in jeopardy. Steel is central to our local economy. With more than 900 Liberty staff based in Rotherham and many more workers in the steel supply chains, its loss would be a colossal blow, but more is at stake than the economic impact. Steel is integral to our town’s identity, its pride, its heritage. Although there has been some good news recently, with Liberty reiterating its commitment to the Aldwarke plant, the decision to seek a buyer for its specialist steels arms, which include the Brinsworth narrow strip mill, is a cause of real concern.
To date, the Government have done little more than keep a watching brief. We cannot allow this to continue. The Government must play an active role to make sure that our industry is secure.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now go via videolink to Grahame Morris. To reiterate, if he speaks for less than three minutes, we will get more people in.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
Steel is a vital industry—vital to our economy, our national security, and the prosperity of communities outside London and the south-east. If the Government implement the Trade Remedies Authority’s recommendations to scrap nine of the 19 safeguard tariffs on steel, it will pave the way for cheap imports that will undermine our domestic steel industry at the worst possible time.
Current trade policy is failing the UK’s regions. Despite the protestations of Government Members, time and again the Conservatives have failed to back British steel, opting instead to rely on imported steel in Government procurement contracts. Ministers and the TRA are undermining an industry that, as we have heard, directly employs nearly 34,000 people in relatively well paid and highly skilled jobs and supports a further 42,000 jobs in the supply chain. Labour has pledged to build in Britain to create UK manufacturing jobs in the low-carbon infrastructure of the future. We cannot allow the Government to offshore this vital industry. British steel should be at the heart of every major UK defence and infrastructure project. We need to see investment in decarbonisation and in hydrogen technology that will enable our steel industry to lead the way towards achieving the UK’s net zero target and safeguard good, well-paid green jobs in the process.
We need a trade policy that empowers workers. Labour warned that the lack of representation for both industry and unions on the Trade Remedies Authority would be detrimental and lead to the kind of recommendations that this motion seeks to reject today. My union, Unite, which represents thousands of members in all areas of the steel industry, is urging the Government to take immediate action to stabilise the industry. I share the concerns of Unite assistant general secretary, Steve Turner, who said that
“there is a real danger that a combination of ideology and the wrong political choices will open the gates to cheap imports, which will costs thousands of skilled jobs and devastate local communities.”
The Government may be willing to abandon steelworkers and their communities, but my party—the Labour party—will do whatever it takes to defend and protect them and build a stronger, greener, more prosperous British steel industry for the future.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We have heard impassioned speeches on both side of the House from Members who represent steelmaking constituencies. I am really pleased that the motion from my hon. Friends also recognises the importance of those in the supply chain, because in Chesterfield, with our close proximity to Sheffield, we have a long-standing history of supply to the steel industry, and that is incredibly important.
What is slightly missing from this debate is how crucial the steel industry is not just to those people employed directly in it or those supplying it, but to manufacturing in the UK more broadly. In terms of the role of global Britain and supporting global manufacturing, having a competitive steel industry here in the UK is absolutely crucial and we must give that support. I feel that the Government do not think through the consequences of us being entirely dependent on China, in terms of our global independence. When I heard the contribution from the Minister at the start of the debate, it made me wonder if that was really the party that, just a few months ago, was claiming that they would enable us to “take back control”, because he simply stood at the Dispatch Box, threw his arms in the air and said that there is nothing that we can do. I am glad that there are some Government Members—in Stocksbridge, in Scunthorpe—who do recognise how dangerous this will be. Let us see how they vote later today and whether they do so based on the sentiments that they laid out.
Manufacturers in Chesterfield have been coming to me saying that the steel prices that have rocketed up recently and a Government who are washing their hands of any responsibility are making UK manufacturers outside the steel industry desperately concerned that they will no longer be competitive in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Beth Winter, who has two minutes.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I come from a family of Welsh industrial workers. My father and grandfather were coalminers and my other grandfather worked for the steel industry. The steel industry is a vital part of the Welsh economy. Along with the coal industry, it is part of our industrial heritage, and I want steel to be part of our future, too. I have seen at first hand the devastation caused to communities by the closure of the mining industry and I do not want the same to happen to the steel industry. It employs thousands in jobs in Wales, and many through the supply chain, and the median salary in the steel sector is around £34,000 a year. While this may seem humble to the average Tory, it is 45% above the median salary in Wales. It provides stable, well-paid jobs—gold dust in parts of the country such as mine that have been neglected by successive Tory Governments.
The Government talk of levelling up, but we judge them by their actions, not their words. Their failure to protect and modernise the industry adequately belies the levelling-up rhetoric. Levelling up for the steel industry in Wales will be sacrificed on the altar of the Government’s uncaring pursuit of free trade agreements. If Wales is to meet its carbon emissions target, the steel industry needs considerable investment, and the UK will not achieve its target for emissions unless the steel industry in Wales is adequately financed to enable this to happen.
There are measures that this Government can take to protect the British steel industry, particularly in this post-Brexit world. Not to take those steps would be an abrogation of the Government’s responsibility to the British people. Not to invest in the necessary infrastructure for the future green industry would be a denial of their obligations to future generations. That is why I fully support this motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I apologise to those who have not been able to get in, but I need to start the wind-ups now.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
We have had an excellent debate with noteworthy contributions from all parts of the House. I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), on securing this debate, and I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for Neath (Christina Rees), for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter). As I said, there were great speeches from all parts of the House.
At the heart of the debate is a question. We can all talk the rhetoric of building back better, but the question facing us is: when hard decisions have to be made, is rhetoric matched by reality? There is no greater test than how we treat the steel industry, because steel supports tens of thousands of high-skilled, high-wage jobs that are the pride of communities across our country, because a strong domestic steel industry is essential to our national manufacturing success and because steel is vital for our national security. We should be using every tool at our disposal to support the industry. That means Government putting their money where their mouth is in enabling steel to navigate the green transition, it means doing whatever it takes to support employment and it means making the right decisions on trade.
Let me come to the heart of our motion. The Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), drew the short straw at the International Trade team meeting by being sent out to bat when the Government have no position, or at least no position that I could comprehend from his speech, but this is an incredibly serious situation. We are nine days away from these protections lapsing.
Let us just be clear for the Minister and the House about what UK Steel is saying would be the impact of the measures lapsing:
“a hammer blow to the UK steel sector…utter madness…the UK’s new system has failed our domestic steel sector.”
The decision reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the realities of steel production. That is the reality.
What UK Steel is saying is not based on ideology, but on a practical assessment of the international steel market. Indeed, it has been well described by a former steel analyst, who said that
“something like 2 billion tonnes are produced every year, and there is a global glut. Lots of steel is being produced, and the real danger is that, somehow, we are exposed to dumping and to people overproducing and, essentially, undercutting our own producers.”
That former steel analyst is none other than the Business Secretary, appearing at the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee less than a month ago on 25 May.
The Business Secretary went on to say:
“This is a problem that is faced by all steel producers. The US has Section 232 tariffs. The EU, of which we were a member…had its own safeguards and tariff protections…We have to try to work out how we navigate this global glut of steel.”
Here we have a Government Minister who correctly identifies the problem—the risks of global oversupply—yet his own Government are deciding actively to remove the very safeguards against it, to ignore the warnings of the steel industry and steelworkers, to undermine the promises that the Government are making to the sector and to weaken our domestic steel manufacturers. We should be very clear about that because Members, particularly on the Government Benches, were concerned about it.
This is an insurance policy. These tariffs kick in once imports get above a certain quota, set at 111% of historic imports. It is a balanced insurance policy to prevent the oversupply that the Secretary of State identifies. The TRA is proposing to remove the insurance policy in half the product categories. I have read the TRA document and I have listened to the debate, and the case is simply not made out for that. We cannot argue that these are nine areas where we do not have domestic production, because we do, and we cannot say that there is no risk of serious injury to domestic producers, because the industry itself says there is. It simply leaves us with this argument: that we should have the cheap imports at the expense of our domestic industry. In other words, we are failing to learn all the lessons of the past, and here we are. What is the EU doing? Well, the EU is retaining its existing protections. I have to say that it does seem extraordinary that here we are, six months after the end of the transition period—when we were told that Brexit would provide stronger domestic protections for our industry—having to argue with the Government to keep the domestic protections that were in place when we were in the European Union. It makes no sense. No wonder our steel manufacturers are reacting with anger and disbelief, uncomprehending, and asking, “How are we even in this position?”
It is easy in these circumstances to blame the TRA, and, indeed, I think it has made the wrong decision. But this is also about the remit that it has been given. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a bit of a nerd—much of a nerd. Paragraph 30 of the TRA’s document says that it has had representations about the interconnectedness of the industry—that we cannot simply separate out products—but it says pretty clearly that that is not really the way it can think about these issues. It cannot look at the interconnectedness of the industry, nor, indeed, a whole set of issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury. It cannot be right that the Government implement these flawed recommendations.
There is also a wider issue, which is that the legislation around the TRA is clearly not fit for purpose. That is why we have tabled this motion. It is hardly as though we are jumping the gun. We are nine days from the end of this protection. I mean, come on! What is the answer here? Our steelworkers and steel manufacturers want to know what the answer is from a Government who say they are standing up for steel. We have made our suggestion about how to deal with this, through emergency legislation. If there is a better suggestion, I look forward to hearing it from the Minister. The Government know in their heart of hearts that they are there in a ridiculous position, but it is time that they did something about it; they owe it to the steel industry to do something about it.
There is a wider context that I want briefly to mention, because it is symptomatic of a failure to have the kind of industrial policy for steel that we need. Steel faces a huge green transition—the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) talked about it—but let us be clear about the scale of the task that we all face in this House. The industry says that we need billions for the green steel transition. A £250 million clean steel fund in 2023 is not going to cut the mustard. It is not going to give us the steel industry that we need in the future. There is a big choice for us as a country: do we invest to retain steelmaking capacity, with all the jobs and security it brings; or do we have some kind of neglect of the industry, with devastating consequences?
It is true of hydrogen as well. A £240 million hydrogen fund is better than nothing, but the Germans are offering €9 billion to invest in hydrogen. We face uniquely high energy prices, the whole issue of public procurement, whereby we still spend 25% on foreign steel, and an industry that is too often lurching from crisis to crisis, stuck in a long cycle of foreign acquisitions, insolvencies and bail-outs. To secure a long-term future, we must break this cycle. That is why we need a comprehensive industrial strategy for our UK steel sector, but we still do not see it from this Government.
For the first time in nearly 50 years, the UK has sole autonomy and responsibility for our external trade policy. We have to use this opportunity to develop a trade policy that supports an active industrial strategy that will help grow our foundational industries. I actually think that that view is mostly shared on both sides of the House, but that is why the position we have reached is so incomprehensible. We are not debating how we strengthen the protections for our domestic industry; we are desperately trying to cling on to the protections that we used to have.
Good rhetoric is not enough to help our steel industry; we need action. We need action in the next nine days. The Government must act to keep these protections in place. As we have heard on both sides of the Chamber, they must also give this House the ability to put our national economic interests first in trade decisions. We also need a comprehensive plan to support our steel industry, and deliver the manufacturing and industrial future that we need. We owe it to the communities of our country and to their future to deliver it.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I thank everyone who has spoken on this important topic this evening. We have heard some passionate speeches, not least just now from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), and I recognise the significant concern being expressed by all colleagues on behalf of UK steel producers.
Hon. Members heard the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), clearly set out the role of the Trade Remedies Authority, which is sponsored by the Department for International Trade, and how its recommendation process works. The world has changed since 2018 when these powers were put in place, so my Department is very supportive of the Trade Secretary’s desire to review the domestic toolkit, given the challenges of global trade. At the same time, my ministerial colleagues in BEIS and I will continue to devote our focus to the future of this important sector. Although the global economic context is challenging, hon. Members will recall that the Secretary of State said when giving oral evidence to the BEIS Committee’s inquiry into the future of steel that the UK industry will continue to need high-quality steel and British steel is among the best in the world. Making sure our steel industry has the right conditions to thrive is a key part of our efforts to reach net zero and level up across our country.
There should be no doubt that this Government are committed to UK steel making, as the Secretary of State has affirmed, both at that session and on a number of recent occasions. We are already working to protect jobs and we are straining every sinew to ensure that the industry succeeds at securing a sustainable future. Our unprecedented package of covid-19 support over the past year is still available to the sector, to protect jobs and to ensure that producers have the right support during what has been and continues to be a challenging time.
My hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and for Redcar (Jacob Young), whom I know have all met the Business Secretary today to discuss the best way forward for the industry, will, I hope, be reassured about our commitment to our UK steel sector. As many hon. Members with close links to steel will know, the Government are working closely with industry and trade unions to understand how we can, together, create a sustainable future for the steel sector in the UK. We recognise absolutely that industrial users in the UK pay higher electricity costs than European competitors, which is why since 2013 we have provided more than £500 million in relief to help steel producers with electricity costs, and we are currently consulting steel companies on the future of such schemes.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) highlighted, the Government’s £350 million industrial energy transformation fund will support businesses with high energy use to cut their bills and reduce carbon emissions. It is a fact that to reach our ambitious net zero target the UK steel sector does need to decarbonise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) set out so eloquently. Our new industrial decarbonisation strategy, which is the first net zero-aligned strategy from a major economy, sets out, for the first time, the Government’s comprehensive assessment of how industry, including the steel sector, can decarbonise in line with net zero in a way that supports competitiveness and clean growth. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) highlighted, this is an important journey for the industry.
The strategy includes a commitment to work with the UK Steel Council, which the Business Secretary re-formed on 5 March and provides a forum to work in partnership with industry and the unions to develop a plan to support the sector’s transition to a competitive, sustainable and low-carbon future. In particular, we are working with the UK Steel Council to examine the implications of the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change to set targets for steelmaking to reach net zero emissions by 2035. In 2019, we announced the £250 million clean steel fund to support the sector to transition to low-carbon iron and steel production through new technologies and processes, so I can reassure the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that we have indeed got the steel industry’s back. This fund is currently in development and we need to take the time to design this policy. Complex decarbonisation projects have long lead-in times and the steel sector has indicated that its preference is for the fund to be launched in 2023.
All that strong steel action is aligned with our prioritisation of science and innovation. We recognise the equally strong economic benefits of public investment in science and innovation, and in its capacity to leverage private investment. Because of that, we will increase public research and development investment to £22 billion per year from 2024-25. We also plan to establish a net zero hydrogen fund, with £240 million of capital co-investment out to 2024-25. This will support at-scale hydrogen production projects, allowing steel producers the potential to access supplies of low-cost hydrogen.
Decarbonisation is one top priority. Another one is resolving procurement challenges that the industry faces, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) highlighted. We are working hard to ensure that UK steel producers have the best possible chance of competing for and winning contracts for all Government projects, including those like ships identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), with his now famous colour. We have established a BEIS industry-led steel procurement taskforce co-chaired by the Minister for investment to explore what Government and industry can do to address the challenges the sector has reported when competing for public contracts.
More broadly, we recently consulted on an ambitious package of procurement reform with the aim of creating a simpler and more flexible regime that works much better for British businesses. The Cabinet Office has now published both the national procurement policy statement and a new procurement policy note on taking account of carbon reduction plans in major projects. BEIS continues to publish our annual steel pipeline, along with data from the previous financial year on levels of steel procured by Departments, origin where known, and compliance with the guidance on procuring steel.
This House should be in no doubt that the Government are working closely with the steel industry and have put our optimism for the future of our steel industry into action.
Mr Perkins
The Minister is saying that this Government have the industry’s back, but the letter by UK Steel read out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made it absolutely clear that it believes that if the Government vote against the motion and do not put in place alternatives, it will be catastrophic for our industry. Why should we believe that the Minister knows better than the very people running the UK steel industry?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I refer back to the comments made by the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire. The tools available to us relating to anti-dumping measures continue to be ones that remain at the forefront of the Secretary of State’s toolkit, as I mentioned. I know she will be focusing on that very closely in the days and weeks ahead. There should be no doubt that we absolutely have the future of our steel industry at the centre. It is a strategic industry and remains so, as so many colleagues have mentioned this evening. Speaking as the Minister challenged with delivering net zero, I can say that the offshore wind industry and the nuclear industry, and so many other critical parts of our infrastructure within the net zero part of this Government’s and this country’s commitment over the next 30 years, will require high quality and hopefully very much British-made steel. We are fully cognisant of the international situation that the industry and all its communities face, so we continue to work to protect jobs and to ensure that the industry succeeds in securing its sustainable future. I firmly believe that we will and know that the Secretary of State will continue to update the House in the days ahead.
Question put.
Business without Debate
UK’s Financial Services Industry
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as always.
I am delighted to speak about the UK’s greatest success story and one of our most vibrant and innovative sectors, financial services. I am proud to champion it in Parliament through my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial markets and services. I speak as a former corporate lawyer at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. I have also worked in strategy and restructuring at HSBC, so I have experience in the sector. I would like to use this debate to set out my vision for the future path of our financial services sector at a very critical time, to ensure that it delivers benefits to constituents and businesses across our great country.
As the Minister I know appreciates, it is difficult to overstate the importance of financial services to the UK economy. It accounts for almost 7% of the UK’s total economic output. The sector employs over 1 million people, two thirds of whom work outside of London, contrary to what many believe, providing benefits that extend well beyond the historic walls of the City square mile, to bustling financial hubs such as Edinburgh, Belfast, Cardiff and Leeds. Financial services are also a major contributor to the Exchequer, accounting for more than £1 in every £20 of total UK tax receipts, which go to support our public finances and important services such as the NHS. At the same time as having that domestic focus, the UK leads the world as an internationally competitive financial centre. Financial services are an advert for global Britain, attracting international investment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Member agree that the potential of Brexit to allow for the regulation of our financial services has not yet been realised and that there is more to do in legislating appropriately to ensure a balance, so that growth and the regulation of practice and outcome go hand in hand? We can do better; the potential is there.
Bim Afolami
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Indeed, he is right, and I will comment later on ways in which we can use our new freedoms to improve the output of the financial services sector.
Some say that we should not speak too much about financial services, lest it upset certain people in the country or is alienating in some way. I suppose that is a hangover from the financial crisis, but I completely reject that view. We are at a new moment now. We have a fantastic financial services industry; it is world leading, and we need to be proud of it. Indeed, in the face of the unprecedented economic uncertainty created by the pandemic, our financial services industry stood up to the challenge. The financial system remained resilient and responded to customers’ needs, demonstrating the central role that it plays in facilitating and protecting our economy.
When corporates were strapped for cash, there was no liquidity failure in the banking system. Instead, bank lending surged. Working in partnership with the Government, the Treasury and the Bank of England, the sector was able to provide a comprehensive package of support, which included facilitating over £75 billion in emergency finance to 1.6 million businesses. I am pleased to announce to the House that more than £100 million of that support went to my constituency of Hitchin and Harpenden to support more than 2,400 fantastic local businesses through covid and the lockdown. That was on top of an array of forbearance measures for personal customers, including 2.75 million mortgage payment deferrals, 1.8 million credit card and loan payment holidays, and 27 million interest-free overdrafts to customers. In short, our financial system did its job. When there was a crisis, it provided a safety net for the constituents and businesses of Members on both sides of the House.
However, now we need to look forward and build back better from coronavirus. Our financial services industry is at a crossroads. Brexit and the return of rule-making powers to the UK for the first time in decades has created a unique chance, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) remarked, to refit our financial services sector in a way that is better suited to our domestic needs and even more internationally competitive. Parliament, Government, regulators and the industry now have the opportunity to ask fresh questions about what the future of financial services in the UK should look like and how we should fine-tune the rules that govern the sector to provide the right conditions for it to thrive.
At the same time, the UK faces huge international competition. Across the Atlantic, New York is cementing itself as a leading international financial centre. In Asia, financial hubs are catching up with us fast, whether it be Hong Kong, Singapore or other cities. The ambitions of our European friends and neighbours to create onshore financial centres within the European Union bloc at the expense of London—let us not kid ourselves about that—is becoming increasingly apparent. If we are to continue to reap the benefits from this world-leading sector based here in the UK, it is crucial that we get our regulatory changes right in the next period, ensuring that the UK remains an attractive location for both domestic and international firms in the years to come.
Let me now turn to the steps on how we can achieve this. I am glad to say that the Government are wasting no time in realising their ambition to strengthen the UK’s position as a global financial hub. The Prime Minister met financial services leaders on this precise issue only a few weeks ago. Central to the Government’s ambition is the landmark Financial Services Act 2021, on which I spoke in this House and served in the Committee, as the Minister will remember. I once again commend him and his team for their hard work in achieving this vital piece of legislation, which already puts down much of the groundwork on which we can build. Alongside that, I commend the findings from the Government-commissioned reviews from Lord Hill and Ron Kalifa on, respectively, listings and FinTech. I appreciate the work the Government are doing to implement their recommendations without hesitation. I have been checking on this. When one engages with what the Government are actually doing, it is clear that they are more than exceeding expectations in really looking at these reviews to see what can be done as quickly as possible.
In the longer term, the Treasury is undertaking a wide-ranging review of the future regulatory framework for financial services. It is important to be clear that this is not—I repeat, not—a regulatory race to the bottom, as many would suggest. The Chancellor rightly stated, when setting out his vision for the sector in this House, that the UK will maintain the highest, most effective global standards as we look to shape the future of the industry. Indeed, there is no future of the industry with poor-quality, bargain-basement regulation; the future of the industry is high-quality, high global standards. However, we should take the opportunity to fine-tune this regulation, where it benefits the UK, to make it simpler and more responsive to the industry. The future framework should also be more proportionate, particularly to mid-tier providers—I have them in my own constituency in certain areas—that are currently saddled with disproportionate regulatory costs compared with many larger financial institutions that have armies of lawyers and accountants and various other people to help to deal with that regulation. Frankly, Brexit makes sense if we can take the opportunities available to us to do things better and more flexibly in areas where we have a real advantage. Financial services is one of the key areas in which we can do this.
As our powers are returned from the European Union, we must strengthen the political accountability to which regulators will be subject given their enhanced responsibilities. We have given them enormous power to make rules that have a huge impact on the livelihoods of literally millions of people. That power needs to be properly scrutinised and checked by Parliament and indeed this House. However, this House is not currently best equipped to carry out this role in terms of our structures. Scrutiny of the sector currently lies with the Treasury Committee, but its remit is incredibly broad in dealing with everything that the Treasury deals with. Therefore, having sustained and detailed oversight of technical regulations and aspects of financial services is going to be difficult. I encourage the Minister to consider the conclusions of the recent report by the all-party parliamentary group on financial markets and services. Ah, there it is—he has it in his hand; he has read it, which is good. It calls for a new specialist Joint Committee of both Houses to be established with a specific remit for overseeing not the Treasury, which already has the Treasury Committee, but our regulators and the financial services sector in particular. That would ensure that Parliament could take a central role in helping guide and scrutinise regulators while balancing the needs of the sector with the wider public policy aims that we all know.
Looking abroad, we need to promote international trade in financial services. As we review our framework, we need to understand that the Government’s work on trade agreements is vital but, frankly, whether it be within this House, outside this House or in the press or the media, too rarely do people think of trade as including services. I urge the Government to ensure that we apply the same level of focus in our trade agreements on services as we do on any goods. The Government must prioritise financial services in their trade deals and their emerging trade agenda more broadly and be explicit about their key importance to our country. In economic terms, the opportunities for financial services with our international trade are huge.
Promoting international trade is also about ensuring that we attract the best international talent to the UK. The new global talent visa and the new Office for Talent will be very important steps in helping achieve that ambition. I commend the Government on bringing them into force. It is also worth saying that, on the international agenda, our emerging partnership with Switzerland is very promising. I ask the Minister for his reflections on how that partnership could help really strengthen our financial services sector and, indeed, our industry.
One key area in which the UK risks falling behind its international competition is getting the right levels of taxation for the banking sector. At present, the UK’s banking industry is burdened with a number of sector-specific taxes such as the bank levy and irrevocable VAT that are not dependent on profits and represent a fixed cost to firms each year. Indeed, almost half of total tax receipts are made up of such sector-specific payments, taking the UK’s taxation rate for banks well above financial centres such as New York and Frankfurt. I therefore agree with the Government’s view that the planned increase in the main corporation tax rate to 25% would make the UK’s bank taxation system uncompetitive. To help address that, I support the Chancellor in his Budget announcement of a review to the bank surcharge, which is an additional 8% charge that banks pay on their profits that dates from the aftermath of the financial crisis. It is my view that the time has come to get rid of that surcharge. This is not about giving tax cuts to bankers: it is about the UK remaining a competitive place for firms to do business so that the public can continue to benefit from the success of the sector in this country.
I have already mentioned Ron Kalifa’s FinTech review. Without repeating all its requirements or recommendations, I bring the Minister’s attention to four key things about how we navigate the new world in which we find ourselves, the world of FinTech and how the Government should address them. First, in relation to policy and regulation, we need dynamic leadership that protects consumers yet nurtures FinTech activity and encourages competition. Secondly, on skills, we need to ensure that FinTech has a sufficient supply of domestic and international talent and the means to train and upskill our current and future workforce. My personal view is that we need to retrain and upskill adults in support of UK FinTech by ensuring access to short courses from high-quality providers at low cost. We should support the establishment of new coding schools all over the country, with two-year courses and admission on aptitude, raw ability and potential only. Such a measure could be a real benefit. Indeed, we need investment in FinTech. We need to help complete the funding ladder from start-ups right the way through to the initial public offering. Indeed, we also need national connectivity. We should not just accept where FinTechs are in the UK, whether it be in London or anywhere else. We need to strengthen their connections across all four nations.
For domestic customers, saving and investing should be simplified. At a time when the complexities and choices facing consumers are ever more complex, we need to make it all much easier for people. It is currently vastly easier to spend online today than it is to save and invest for tomorrow. We need to help harness technology to drive investment.
Turning this picture round will require thinking about financial services regulation, and it is good to see a number of regulatory barriers to financial services customer journeys under scrutiny. The Financial Conduct Authority’s support for an open finance agenda is a key example of that, and more opportunities will become available to UK policy makers as we build our regulatory framework. In turn, that will enable us to bring the UK’s regulatory agenda closer to the saving and investment needs of UK citizens. For that to work, trust will be key. Existing brands such as Fidelity are already working hard in that space.
I have considered a number of topics in this speech, but I will draw my remarks to a close. To echo the Chancellor’s words, financial services are a jewel in the crown of the UK economy. The sector is one of the engines of Britain’s economic prosperity, and it should be put front and centre of any future trade deals, and in our regulatory changes. My specific questions to the Minister are these. First, will he update the House on the Treasury’s plans for the 8% surcharge and whether it can be scrapped? Secondly, will he provide an update on implementing the recommendations from the Hill and Kalifa reviews? Thirdly, what is the Government’s emerging view on how Parliament should scrutinise the regulators that implement so many financial services rules? Finally, what opportunities does the Minister see with our trade agenda, and in particular our deepening relationship with Switzerland?
As we look to build back better from the pandemic and level up every corner of the UK, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restructure the way our financial services sector works. We must take that opportunity and help to set Britain’s financial services sector up for a new global future.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) on securing this debate, and I thank him for the many insightful and constructive contributions he has made on financial services-related matters in this House. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the sector’s future. As he rightly noted, the financial services industry is incredibly important to the UK, and the huge support it has provided to the economy over the past 16 months is testimony to that. Its work with the Government has meant that businesses across the UK could borrow more than £75 billion to help them through the pandemic.
There is no doubt that the sector has an equally important role to play in our economic recovery and long-term future, by boosting our competitiveness and spreading opportunity and prosperity throughout the United Kingdom. As Members will recall, in November the Chancellor set out the Government’s vision for the future of financial services in a post-pandemic, post-Brexit world. The goal is simple: we want to help ensure that the sector is even more open, technologically advanced, and greener than ever before.
How will we do that? On openness, we are building new and deeper relationships with countries around the world. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, we have a clear opportunity to strengthen ties with markets beyond Europe, from the US to Japan, and ensure that we build new links with fast-growing markets in the east, including India and China. In particular, he mentioned the exciting possibilities from the ambitious mutual recognition agreement that we are pursuing with Switzerland. That will facilitate a broad range of wholesale financial services between the UK and Switzerland, on the basis of co-operation and high standards of regulation. It will also recognise that jurisdictions can achieve similarly high standards of regulation in different ways.
Our objective for the mutual recognition agreement is to improve cross-border financial services provision between the UK and Switzerland across insurance, banking, asset management, capital markets and market infrastructure. We now have the freedom to build new, deeper financial services relationships with like-minded global financial centres. The share trading obligation decision, which came into force earlier this year and allows UK shares to be traded on Swiss exchanges, is a good example of that freedom.
On the broader topic of international competitiveness, my hon. Friend asks for an update on the review of the level of the bank surcharge announced in the Budget earlier this year. It is critical that the UK’s bank taxes are set at a level that does not compromise our objective for a strong and competitive banking sector. That is precisely why, in the light of the changes to the headline rate of corporation tax, the Government will review the appropriate level of the bank surcharge with a view to making an announcement in the autumn on how we will ensure that the combined rate of taxes on banks’ profits does not increase substantially from its current level.
Let me stress that the Government recognise the value of certainty to financial services. The changes resulting from the review will therefore be legislated for in the Finance Bill 2021-22 and will have effect from the same time as the increase to the main rate of corporation tax. At no point will the banks be subject to a tax rate on their profits at or near 33%.
As well as working to ensure international competitiveness, we also have an extremely busy domestic agenda. Among our main areas of focus is getting the right regulation in place to take advantage of our new position outside the institutional frameworks of the EU. We are committed to upholding the UK’s high regulatory standards while ensuring that we maintain our position as a global financial hub, but we have an opportunity to do things differently. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the importance of our future regulatory framework review; I welcome the important contribution of his all-party group and its recent report to this important debate. Let me remind the House of the details of the Government’s review: it explores the reforms needed to tailor our regulations to life outside the EU, and aims to establish an approach to financial services regulation that meets the specific needs of UK firms, markets and consumers.
I stress that Parliament will continue to have a vital role in shaping the financial services regulatory landscape. We believe that appropriate democratic accountability and scrutiny of the regulators is vital for an effective and legitimate regulatory framework. We agree that greater responsibility for regulators should be balanced with appropriate democratic policy input and oversight from Government and Parliament.
I turn to FinTech. When it comes to our vision for a more technologically advanced financial services sector, we are focused on helping our FinTech industry to stay at the cutting edge of global innovation. My hon. Friend asked about the implementation of the Kalifa review’s recommendations. As I outlined in my written ministerial statement in April, the Government and the regulators have confirmed a number of actions in response, including help for FinTech firms to recruit the best talent through our new scale-up visa scheme to attract global talent and boost the FinTech workforce; a regulatory scalebox that will enhance support for early-stage FinTech firms and allow them to grow as quickly as possible; the Treasury and the Bank of England’s new central bank digital currency taskforce to co-ordinate the exploration of a potential UK CBDC; Government support for an industry-led centre for finance, innovation and technology; and an initiative from the Department for International Trade to support UK FinTech firms to expand internationally and encourage overseas firms to establish a presence in the UK.
I fully recognise my hon. Friend’s interest in capital and wholesale markets. We want to help businesses to list and grow on stock markets in the UK when they are ready. We have therefore announced how we will take forward each of the recommendations addressed to the Treasury in Lord Hill’s recent listings review. I thank Jonathan Hill, my constituent, for the enormous amount of work that he put into that review.
We expect to consult on detailed policy proposals in the summer, including proposals to delete the share trading obligation and double volume cap, but rest assured, we will aim to deliver a rulebook that is fair, outcomes-based and supports competitiveness, while ensuring that the UK maintains the highest regulatory standards. Undoubtedly, the future of the UK financial services sector is linked to the future of our planet, and that connection is clearer than ever as we prepare to host COP26 in November.
I mentioned earlier that building a greener industry is a key element of our vision for financial services, and that is why a central focus of the COP26 finance campaign will be to ensure that every professional financial decision takes climate change into account. Furthermore, we believe that financial services have an important part to play in helping us to level up the country by generating jobs and growth, and we are focused on unlocking the hundreds of billions of pounds sitting with UK institutional investors to drive our country forward.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for contributing to a wide-ranging discussion of the issues facing this country’s financial services sector. Clearly, engagement will be crucial to help the UK financial services sector fulfil its full potential. I have been meeting industry actors very regularly and will continue to do so, so that I can understand how this Government can support them to achieve their goals, and I look forward to pursuing that work further. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the points that he has this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
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 |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (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) | Zarah Sultana |
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 |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Jim Shannon |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Jim Shannon |
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 |
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 |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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) | Liz Saville Roberts |
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 |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Jim Shannon |
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 |
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
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) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr 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) | Zarah Sultana |
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 |
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (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 |
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC) | Liz Saville Roberts |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Jim Shannon |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba) | Neale Hanvey |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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 |
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 |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
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 |
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 |
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
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 |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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 |
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) | Zarah Sultana |
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) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
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 British Nationality Act 1981 (Immigration Rules Appendix EU) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members about the social distancing regulations. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee when not speaking. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if you could send any 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 British Nationality Act 1981 (Immigration Rules Appendix EU) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
It is a genuine pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. For the Committee’s convenience, I will henceforth refer to the draft statutory instrument as the British Nationality Act SI.
Free movement ended on 31 December 2020, under the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020. The Act enabled us to deliver on manifesto promises to the British people and paved the way for the new points-based immigration system, which began operating from 1 January 2021. As part of the package of legislation for those changes, Parliament also approved the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. These regulations provide an additional six months, referred to as the grace period, in which a European economic area or Swiss national and their family members—it is not just EEA and Swiss nationals who acquire rights in terms of free movement—who are resident here by the end of the transition period can make an application to the EU settlement scheme by 30 June 2021 for the status they need to secure their rights under the citizens’ rights agreements and to have their existing EEA residents’ rights protected in the meantime.
Millions have applied for status under the EU settlement scheme, with more than 5 million grants of status having already been made, and thousands more being made every day. The immigration rules for the scheme, at appendix EU, confirm that, in line with the citizens’ rights agreements, an application can be made after the 30 June deadline where there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline or for not being aware of the need to apply.
The British Nationality Act SI reflects the ending of the grace period on 30 June 2021 and the scope for an application to the EU settlement scheme to be made after that date, or to be decided after that date if it has been made before it. The SI protects nationality rights for children born after 30 June but before the outcome of such an application. The British Nationality Act SI is made specifically under the delegated regulation-making power in section 5 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act, the scope of which was debated extensively in both Houses during the passage of the legislation.
In keeping with the limitations of the section 5 powers, therefore, the draft SI amends primary UK legislation as a direct consequence of, or in connection with, the provisions in part 1 of the 2020 Act, which ended free movement. Hence it is applied only to children born after free movement and the grace period have ended. The effect of the legislative changes is to allow a child to become a British citizen automatically when born in the UK after 30 June 2021 and once the EU settlement scheme application submitted by their parent or parents is resolved through a grant of indefinite leave, known to the EU settlement scheme as settled status, which occurs after that birth.
That may occur in two scenarios. The first is where an application was submitted in time for the 30 June deadline but has not been resolved at the point when the child is born. The second is where an application is submitted after the 30 June deadline, based on reasonable grounds for missing it, and is resolved favourably after the child’s birth. In that scenario, the parent needs to demonstrate that they would have met the relevant eligibility requirements immediately before 1 July 2021 had they applied in time for the EU settlement scheme. The immigration rules and guidance already set out how any late applications to the EU settlement scheme should be considered and the approach that will be taken on what may constitute reasonable grounds. Again, I emphasise that the list of examples of “reasonable grounds” is non-exhaustive. Each application will be considered on its own merit, rather than needing to tick one of the boxes in that guidance.
Under the provisions, the child’s acquisition of British citizenship would take effect from the date of the successful grant of indefinite leave to a parent, from which point the parent will be considered settled in the UK. The section 5 powers do not permit us to put in a retrospective acquisition of nationality from the date of birth. We believe that this SI provides clear protection for a child in that position, without the need for them to make a separate nationality application or pay an associated fee. That reflects the unique position of those covered by it. In effect, there would be reasonable grounds for a late application if someone assumed that the combined factors of their having settled in the UK and of their child being born here meant that they were a British citizen at birth. That is very much why we see this as a unique area and provision. Given what I have outlined about late applications and the provision of decisions on those made in time, the change will come into force on 1 July, immediately after the end of the grace period, so there is no break in legal cover.
The British Nationality Act SI reflects the end of the grace period afforded to those EEA or Swiss nationals and their family members who require additional time to submit an application to the EU settlement scheme, and the impact that might have on a child’s nationality where such an application has not been resolved or even submitted at the date of birth. It ensures that there are no unintended consequences in terms of citizenship law from this generous provision. It is an essential step in protecting the status of children and their British citizenship—a status that someone may have had reasonable grounds to believe their child already had. I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. The Opposition support the draft regulations. We believe that a child born in the UK to parents who have the right to settled status should be able to access citizenship where that status had not been granted when the child was born. To not allow children to access citizenship in such circumstances would clearly be unfair and go against legal precedent.
We believe that the UK’s proud tradition of inclusivity necessitates these draft regulations. However, we have several questions for the Minister about some points he made. We are concerned that children falling into the affected categories will have to register to access their citizenship. Anyone registering their British citizenship faces an exorbitant fee, which we have repeatedly challenged. The Government will know that the fee was recently declared unlawful. Therefore, we want to clarify that no such fees will be a consequence of the draft regulations. The Minister mentioned that a child will automatically acquire citizenship. Will he confirm that there will be no fee for that citizenship or subsequent registration?
We are concerned that, although the child’s British citizenship is not backdated to their birth, there is nevertheless a retrospective aspect of disapplying their parent’s lack of lawful status for the period between 1 July and the eventual grant of status. Should a person be rendered liable for NHS treatment and incur a bill before submitting a late application, they would continue to be liable for that treatment, regardless of gaining a grant of status. As the Minister knows, that could be thousands of pounds. We need assurances that the individuals affected by the legal changes will not be subject to retrospective NHS bills that might ensue if that status has not been acquired before that period.
The Government need to produce more information about how the draft regulations will operate. We need to know how EU citizens who become settled on or after 1 July 2021 and their children will be alerted to the right to citizenship. There needs to be provision for the public services that the parents encounter to be made aware of, and able to advise on, a child’s eligibility to citizenship. I know that the Minister said that that is automatic, but some public sector organisations might not be aware of that, which could cause problems in the future.
We are also concerned about other aspects of this change in the law, given the numbers of people involved in ongoing and existing backlogs of settled status cases. We understand that there is a very high number of backlogged cases. That is worrying given the new numbers of cases related to the changes outlined in the draft regulations, which will need to be communicated and actioned. It is vital that the Government have initiatives in place to deal with that. What will those be? It is also vital that the Home Office keeps accurate records of the time lag between applications made before the deadline and the date of the status decision. We would like assurances on that and on whether the Home Office will record the reasons for delays in each application.
We seek clarity about the transparency of records for those affected by the legal changes. One of the many lessons of the Windrush scandal is that safeguards must be in place for all affected children and their parents, carers or corporate parents to have easy access to records. We must not see a repeat of the heartbreak caused in the Windrush scandal by the lack of transparency in record keeping or the lack of reliability.
In summing up, I hope that the Minister will commit to ensuring that the changes to the law will not result in any problems for children or parents seeking records. Will the Department provide access to records for the child to whom section 10A applies? What other steps will the Department take to ensure that the child is able to confirm their British citizenship, whether during childhood or adulthood? I have already mentioned the issue of the fees not applying—the grant is automatic. Will the Minister provide assurances that there will be adequate provision of information to all those affected by the changes, now and in the years to come, when an affected child may need to confirm their British citizenship? We must ensure that, with all the changes, there is no possibility of repeating the mistakes of the Windrush scandal. Therefore, we seek maximum transparency and accessibility for those affected by the change. However, we will not oppose the draft SI.
Kevin Foster
I thank my shadow for his overall constructive commentary and for the official Opposition’s support for the changes.
To give the hon. Gentleman the confirmation he seeks—I understand why he wants it—the BNA provision we are altering is the bit that refers to automatic recognition at birth. A child born to a British citizen or someone with permanent settled status here in the UK becomes a citizen as they are born. They do not need to register an application or to do anything in particular. People need to apply and register when other statuses are in play, but fundamentally automatic acquisition is very much what we have based the measure on. Rather than it being at the moment of birth, it is the moment when, under reasonable grounds, we say yes.
My oft-quoted example is of a child who is five today but who at 18 discovers that the council looking after them had not applied for their settled status. They then make an application to the Home Office, saying, “I was reasonably entitled to think my local authority had applied on my behalf,” and we say, “Yes, that is reasonable grounds.” If they have applied to university or for their first job and discovered that the application was not made, we say, “Yes, okay, you have settled status.” If they have had a child at 17, at that moment the child would become a British citizen—it is almost a birth event. There is therefore no need to apply for citizenship and there is no fee, because it just happens as a legal concept. In essence, we feel that many such cases will be where people might have assumed that their child was already British.
Where would that become relevant? As for many people, it might be when they apply for their first British passport. We would then go through that process to identify the grounds. This is not unique. We have a whole team in Her Majesty’s Passport Office who deal with derivative rights applications from someone whose parents were here as permanent residents, so it is an area with which the Passport Office is familiar.
I fully take on board the need to ensure that people are aware of the provisions, that those provisions are promoted and that in particular we ensure, working in an appropriate way with those parts of the NHS dealing with maternity, that people know their rights. I sometimes give the example of why we do not grant automatic settled status to children of parents with settled status in the UK. That is because, in virtually every case, we grant citizenship instead. These people do not need settled status because they are British citizens, and we cannot grant them an immigration status because they have right of abode instead.
One of the reasons we have gone through the process of the EU settlement scheme is to ensure good records. Even leaving aside people who are making late applications, when someone makes a passport application in years to come, it could be valuable and vital for them to know what their parents’ status was in the UK five or 10 years earlier. The whole reason we have gone through this process is so that there is a secure record of what status people hold.
A good comparator is that of Hong Kong and British nationals overseas. Next week, it will have been 24 years since the handover of Hong Kong to China. We still have the records—held, I believe, in HMPO—of everyone who was entitled to British national overseas status. We launched the route earlier this year and it could be quite a simple process to confirm that status as part of the application, even though it has now been over two decades since it was acquired.
Again, that is a lesson learned from back in the 1970s, when statuses were granted with no records taken. Yes, five or 10 years later, people could prove relatively easily their residence, where they were living and what they were doing here in the UK. But as time went on, as the lessons learned review showed, it became harder and harder for people to prove where they were living on 1 January 1973, and consequences flowed from that. We are keen to make sure that people can see and access their status, and that there is a clear record of it, for when children come to apply for their first British passport.
To be very clear, we were keen for that to be automatic, because with citizenship in particular we need to be specific. The issue of who is a British citizen should not really be open for debate. A person either applies for citizenship and is naturalised, or it is automatic when a particular event happens. Usually, that event is their birth. In this instance, a person might have assumed that their child was a British citizen at birth. Rather than take that away, we thought it better to alter the law so that their child has the status that they assumed existed—given their reasonable grounds for thinking that somebody had applied on their behalf for settled status—and is a British citizen, without any need for further action. Of course, we always encourage people to think of passports and documentation, but that child will be a British citizen and there will be no need for an application process. That will sit in primary legislation, because we are using the very narrow legal power that section 5 gives us to amend primary legislation purely in consequence of the change to free movement. We believe that to be appropriate in this instance, given that without the end of free movement—for the sake of argument—that person would have been British.
I hope that the shadow Minister understands why I cannot give a figure for how many people will be covered, because many of them have not even been conceived yet, let alone born. They are not even a twinkle in their mother or father’s eye. That could be some years in the future, but that is why we thought it important to make very clear now what the position would be, with no doubts around it. I appreciate some of the points that have been made. As hon. Members can imagine, we are working very closely with groups supporting the vulnerable to make sure that where EEA nationals come into contact with public services, there is very strong signposting towards the EUSS. To reassure the shadow Minister, we have already funded our grant-funded organisations up until September to ensure that there is advice and support available beyond—not just up to—the deadline for people who need that assistance.
In particular, work is being done with the NHS, particularly when people may need access to secondary healthcare. First, work is being done to facilitate automatic checks so that people who have EUSS are not being asked to take a status document to a hospital at a difficult time. Secondly, work is being done on the potential to engage when there are reasonable grounds to make a late application. Again, I emphasise that we will take a pragmatic and generous view of what constitute reasonable grounds where someone would clearly have qualified had they applied before the deadline.
I have gone through most of the issues. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about the large number of applications that we are currently working on. I have made clear that we are very keen to encourage as many people as possible. I know he will join me in that, but no one should hear stories that the large number of applications means that we will not be ready to accept others. We are absolutely ready to accept every application from everyone who is entitled to the status they deserve—our friends, our neighbours and those who came here in times of free movement. Our strong message to them is to get their applications in. If they have any doubts or problems, they can get in touch online, by phone or with one of our grant-funded organisations, which give people advice on getting their applications in.
We are deploying additional staff to work through the applications. To be very clear, it is on the face of law that when an application is made before 30 June, the person’s rights under law are protected beyond 30 June. That is in law and not just a commitment from the Home Office. We will take a proportionate and appropriate approach to those we encounter after 1 July who are entitled to EUSS and may have a reasonable ground for application, by giving them a window to make an application for EUSS. With that, I thank my shadow for his constructive comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Carbon Tax Budget
(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee when not speaking. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Carbon Budget Order 2021.
The draft order was laid before the House on 21 April 2021. It may be only one line long, but it is a world-leading line of legislation. It sets a sixth carbon budget of 965 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by the 2033-37 budgetary period, compared with 1990 levels. That level is recommended by our statutory expert advisory body, the Climate Change Committee, and endorsed by all four Governments of the UK nations. The UK was the first country to introduce a legally binding long-term emissions reduction target, through the Climate Change Act 2008. That was updated in 2019 to set our new target of net zero emissions by 2050. Carbon budgets are set on the way to 2050 to step down our emissions every five years. So far, five budgets have been set in law, setting our decarbonisation path through the last decade and the next.
The proposed sixth carbon budget is highly ambitious, seeking to achieve well over half the emissions reductions required from now to 2050 in the next 15 years. It builds on the momentum of our new nationally determined contribution under the Paris agreement to reduce emissions by 2030 by at least 68% compared with 1990 levels—the highest reduction target set by a major economy to date.
The sixth carbon budget will, for the first time, incorporate the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping emissions—an important part of the Government’s decarbonisation efforts that will allow for those emissions to be accounted for consistently. We aim to introduce the necessary legislation formally to include those emissions as soon as possible, and within the year.
The arguments for decisive action on global climate change are overwhelming, and the consequences of inaction are stark. Unchecked, it will lead to rising temperatures and rising sea levels, extreme weather, damage to ecosystems, and reduced crop productivity. Co-ordinated global action is critical if we are to mitigate the potentially catastrophic effects on the environment and economies across the world. The UK is leading the way in responding to the climate threat. This world-leading sixth carbon budget will reinforce that strong leadership, ensuring that the UK acts consistent with the Paris agreement temperature goal to limit global warming to well below 2°C and to pursue efforts towards 1.5°C. Importantly, it will allow us credibly to call on others to increase their own efforts, including at this year’s COP26 summit.
We know that we have a significant challenge ahead of us, with additional effort needed across every sector of the economy, but look at what we have already achieved: cutting emissions by more than 40% since 1990 while growing our economy by more than three quarters. Today, low-carbon electricity gives us more than half our generation, while we boast the world’s largest offshore wind capacity. Consider the benefits that net zero will bring: protecting the planet for future generations; economic growth and jobs in new green sectors; reducing air pollution; and enhancing biodiversity.
The net zero transition has huge potential to support jobs in low-carbon industries, building on the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, which will mobilise £12 billion of Government investment and potentially three times as much from the private sector to create and support up to 250,000 more green jobs by 2030. We recognise that we can harness such benefits only if we back our targets with ambitious plans across all sectors of the economy. Over the coming months, we will bring forward further bold proposals, including a comprehensive net zero strategy showing how we intend to meet this ambitious new carbon budget and earlier targets. That will set out the Government’s vision for transitioning to a net zero economy, cutting emissions and creating new jobs and industries across the country, going further and faster towards building a stronger, more resilient future and protecting our planet for this generation and those to come.
I conclude by emphasising the utmost importance of the sixth carbon budget in our efforts to cut emissions and strengthen our climate leadership ahead of COP26. I hope very much that hon. Members will support this statutory instrument, and I commend the order to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies.
It will not be lost on right hon. and hon. Members that the order is incredibly significant and that it will have far-reaching implications for our economy and all aspects of our society over the next 16 years. For that reason, although the Opposition fully support its passage and have no intention of dividing the Committee, I hope that Members from all parties will forgive me if I make a series of important points and put a number of questions to the Minister. After all, in all likelihood this is the only opportunity the House will have to debate these matters in any detail.
As the Minister made clear, as this is the first carbon budget to be set since the House legislated for a net zero target in 2019, the sixth carbon budget marks a critical point in our country’s contribution to delivering on the ambition of the Paris agreement and thus keeping alive the hope of limiting global heating to 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels.
Labour very much welcomes the Government’s decision to accept the Climate Change Committee’s advice that the budget level be set at 965 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent for the 2033-37 period. I also put on the record the Opposition’s thanks to the CCC for the comprehensive nature of the advice it produced in December, as well as the road map that it set out alongside that advice for achieving a fully decarbonised economy by mid-century.
We also welcome the Government’s decision finally to include emissions from international aviation and international shipping in the legal scope of carbon budgets. I press the Minister to give the Committee a more precise timescale as to when the separate order necessary to give effect to that decision will be introduced.
That our country must achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 at the latest is not in dispute. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment for the sixth carbon budget states that
“there is no alternative to the legal requirement in the Climate Change Act to set a sixth carbon budget level with a view to reducing UK emissions to net zero by 2050”.
Yet it is hard to overstate the challenge posed by seeking to reduce emissions by 78% below 1990 levels over the next 16 years.
As the Minister is acutely aware, the sixth carbon budget target represents a significant scaling-up of ambition relative to the fourth and fifth budgets. For the first time, the whole of society will be required to engage more directly with emissions reduction, in terms of the products we buy and the way we live our lives. However, as the CCC made clear in its advice, if the emissions reductions set out in the order are delivered, that will not only result in the new industrial opportunities that the Minister mentioned, the potential to create hundreds of thousands of well-paying and secure jobs in every nation and region, cheaper bills, warmer homes and a host of other health and environmental benefits, but produce net gains for our economy that offset up-front investment over the long term—for example, in relation to reduced reliance on imported fossil fuels.
The problem is that, as a country, we will achieve net zero by mid-century and realise its promised benefits only if the carbon budget and its two predecessors are met. However, as things stand and as the Minister knows full well, the Government are still off-track not only on the net zero target with which the order aligns the carbon budget framework, but on the less ambitious target that preceded it.
We accept that when it comes to stated ambition, the announcements made over the past year have brought the Government within touching distance of what is required to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, premised as they are on an overall emissions reduction target of 80% relative to 1990 levels. However, when it comes to the commitment in the 2030 nationally determined contribution that the Minister mentioned and in the sixth carbon budget, which we are legislating for this evening, there is still a significant gap between current ambition and what is required to get on track on both those things.
So, for all those commitments that are now aligned with the net zero target—from the pledge to bring forward 40 GW of offshore wind by 2030 to phasing out petrol and diesel cars and vans by the same date—there are scores of other areas, from low-carbon heat networks and heat pumps to peatlands, where ambitions have either not been set or have been set but fall far short of what is required.
In adopting the CCC’s recommended target for the sixth carbon budget, we fully appreciate that Ministers are under no corresponding obligation to follow its specific policy recommendations. However, if the Government choose not to do so, as they have done, the onus is on the Government to make alternative proposals to demonstrate how the budget will be achieved across the economy; how, if ambition falls short in some areas, it will be made up elsewhere; and how, when it comes to up-front costs and distributional impacts, the transition will be made equitably.
Therefore, a huge amount rests on the comprehensive net zero strategy that the Minister mentioned and that we have been promised will be published prior to COP26 in November. That strategy needs to set a coherent vision, filling in the gaps and clarifying the ambiguities that remain. However, if we are to have an effective policy framework to ensure that this carbon budget is met, we also need the full range of detailed blueprints that have been promised by the Government, but not yet delivered.
Where is the heat and buildings strategy, which was promised for spring 2020 and has been repeatedly delayed? Where is the net zero aviation strategy, which was promised for early 2020 and of which there is no sign? Where is the hydrogen strategy that the December 2020 10-point package stated would be published in early 2021? Where is the transport decarbonisation plan, which was announced in 2020 and then delayed until spring 2021? It is still nowhere to be seen.
Crucially, where is the final Treasury net zero review? In an answer to a written question that I tabled on 18 May, the Exchequer Secretary stated that it would be published “this spring”. By my calculation, spring ends today, and there is still no sign of it. As the Minister knows, we need that review, not least because calling any net zero strategy that had not fully incorporated the conclusions of such a review “comprehensive” would be a misnomer.
There is a pattern here. The promises on a given strategy are announced to great fanfare. Some are delivered after significant delay, whereas others fail to materialise, and even those that are published too often fall short of what is required. That pattern points to another problem. Here I sympathise with the Minister—she sits in the lead Department, whose influence clearly does not extend across Government—because several Departments, most notably the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, are simply not pulling their weight on emissions reductions. Even those that are doing reasonably well in relative terms are plagued by poor performance in key areas.
The Minister knows that net zero requires a whole-of-Government approach. As it has real implications for giving effect to the order we are about to pass, I would be grateful if she gave the Committee some sense of why certain Departments seemingly get away with lagging so far behind others. Why do the Cabinet Committees on climate action strategy and climate action implementation not appear to be doing what is required in leadership and co-ordination to drive progress across the board?
Finally, even if the Government close what remains of the ambition gap and introduce detailed strategies in each of the remaining areas, meeting the carbon budget and achieving net zero will still require a step change in delivery. As things stand, only a fraction of the emissions savings required to meet the sixth carbon budget are on track to be implemented in full. Given that the Government are not doing what is necessary to ensure that the change takes place at the pace required, any further fiscal opportunities to lock in a genuine green economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis cannot be squandered. From road building to planning, there needs to be a renewed focus on ensuring that all Government policy is compatible with the net zero target, but greater priority must also be accorded to ensuring that well-designed schemes, particularly those that relate to the decarbonisation of challenging sectors such as buildings, are up and running by the end of this Parliament.
The recent green homes grant fiasco is a case in point. It is not good enough simply to scrap the scheme for homeowners and take forward the local authority delivery element. Given the scale of the challenge presented by energy efficiency in the residential sector, Ministers need to introduce a replacement scheme as a matter of urgency—one that draws on the lessons of what has gone before. I ask the Minister to provide some assurance not only that work is being undertaken to that end, but that there is an impetus within the Government more generally to ensure that the gap between delivery and stated ambition is closed at the pace required to comply with the order and get us on track for net zero.
We of course welcome the order, but we remind the Government that announcing targets is the easy bit. The difficulty lies in achieving them. To date, the Government have been long on aspiration but short on tangible progress. We are about to pass the order, so the focus will turn decisively to implementation and delivery, and we look forward to rigorously holding the Government to account in that respect.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful words and for the depth of his commitment to the subject. We all appreciate that this is, in every sense, whole-of-Parliament legislation. None of us underestimates the challenges of decarbonising the economy, but this legislation will ensure that we give ourselves a marker to move towards.
I will answer a number of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. The shipping and aviation timeline will be within a year. It will be as soon as we can find some parliamentary time and pull together the relevant details, but it is very much at the front end of the queue, because it is important that industry in both sectors can get on and do the work that we want it to do.
Can we be more ambitious? Well, we are incredibly busy. I have published the industrial decarbonisation strategy already, and I will be imminently publishing the hydrogen strategy. The heat and building strategy, which is clearly within the remit of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, is doing the final stages of its tour around Whitehall before it can be published.
I cannot directly speak to the challenges that the hon. Gentleman raises about the Department for Transport’s strategies, but I would like to give him confidence that there really is whole-of-Government thinking on net zero in a way that has never really been visible before. The Climate Action Implementation Committee, on which I sit, meets regularly and is really driving incredibly hard and fast. It is drawing together, at both official level and ministerial level, that criticality of thinking through both the key policies and the most effective policies that can have the biggest impact as quickly as possible.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise time on the Treasury’s net zero review, but I know that it, too, is coming close to completion. Its focus will be on the exposure of household sectors and regions to these changes. The Treasury is providing important oversight by understanding the risks and making sure we make the journey safely and inclusively. This must be a just transition. If it is not, we will be leaving parts of our communities behind, which is not something any of us wants to do; quite the opposite. This affords us the opportunity to think in a forward-leaning, world-leading way to set technologies in place and drive forward private and public sector investment. That gives us the opportunity to give the world leadership and technology to help it decarbonise.
I hope I have provided the necessary assurances to allow the statutory instrument to be approved. It will keep the UK on a credible path to meet our 2050 net zero target and try to keep the temperature rise to 1.5°. It will build on the current momentum, and we will continue to drive new policies that enable us to capitalise on the opportunities that net zero brings and credibly urge other countries to do the same for the benefit of our planet.
I hope I have answered all the questions, and I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Betts [V]
In 2007 there were major floods in Sheffield, which not only affected homes but destroyed large parts of industrial areas, including Meadowhall shopping centre, Forgemasters and other industries. A great deal of work has been done on flood defences, with the council and the private sector working together, with some Government support. However, one thing that would really help is the preservation of the peat bogs in the moorlands above Sheffield, which act as a massive sponge to stop the run-off and the cascading of water down into Sheffield. Will the Minister take action now to stop heather burning on the peat bogs and to make sure that peat does not end up in unnecessary products, such as compost for gardens?
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Government are clear that we will consult on a ban on horticultural peat, and we will shortly bring forward the legislation that will implement a new ban on the burning of heather on blanket bog. It is our intention to treble the rate of peatland restoration, for all the reasons he said.
[Official Report, 17 June 2021, Vol. 697, c. 440.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts).
The correct response should have been:
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Government are clear that we will consult on a ban on horticultural peat, and we recently brought forward legislation that implements a new ban on the burning of heather on blanket bog. It is our intention to treble the rate of peatland restoration, for all the reasons he said.
British Telecom Group staff redundancies
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Grouse Shooting
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Siobhain McDonagh (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 each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall, and they are expected to remain for the entire debate.
I must also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. 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.
Members attending physically who are in the later stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members can speak only from the horseshoe, where there are microphones. I call Tom Hunt to move the motion.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 266770, relating to grouse shooting.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. My role on the Petitions Committee, which I take very seriously, as does every other member of the Committee, is to ensure that petitions with more than 100,000 signatures get debated, and that the arguments put forward by the petitioners are heard and the issue thoroughly debated. That is what I am charged with doing today. As a Member of Parliament for an urban constituency, grouse shooting is not an issue that I know a huge amount about. Not only is it not an activity in Ipswich; it is not an activity in Suffolk, because there are no grouse in Suffolk. However, I am here today.
I thank the 111,965 people who signed the petition. It has taken a while to get it debated, but we are here. The petition calls for a ban on driven grouse shooting, stating that
“Wilful blindness is no longer an option”.
Chris Packham, Ruth Tingay and Mark Avery from Wild Justice
“believe that intensive grouse shooting is bad for people, the environment and wildlife. People; grouse shooting is economically insignificant when contrasted with other real and potential uses of the UK’s uplands. Environment; muirburn impacts negatively upon climate change and drainage leads to flooding and erosion. Wildlife; the wholesale culling of all predators and Mountain Hares has a disastrous effect on the ecology of these areas and the industry is underpinned by a criminal tradition of raptor persecution which shows no signs of abating. It’s time to provide an opportunity to implement immediate, legislative and meaningful measures to address this abhorrently destructive practice.
That is what the petition calls for. For those different reasons, they want grouse shooting to be banned.
There was a debate on this issue in October 2016—I have read the debate in Hansard. To be honest, I do not think the issues seem to have changed much. Probably today we will hear the same arguments put forward from those who want to ban it and probably the same arguments from those who wish it to continue. I appreciate that many colleagues here feel strongly about this issue, which is much more live in their constituencies. I will open the debate and facilitate what I hope will be a scintillating discussion about the issue, but I feel less able to inject personal experience and understanding into it because I have never been grouse shooting and it does not happen in my constituency.
I thought it was only fair to read out the call from Chris Packham and the others who set up the petition, but many people put forward different arguments. Many make economic arguments about the benefits that grouse shooting brings and about the moorland management, effort and expertise that go into preserving these complex habitats. Of course, many of the landscapes are very pleasing to the eye and generate significant amounts of tourism. My understanding is that the North York moors alone often have more than 8 million visitors a year. That does not seem to be an insignificant economic benefit.
My understanding is that grouse moor owners spend more than £50 million a year on preserving these complex environments. Some 42,500 work days every year are generated through this activity, and 1,500 full-time jobs are tied to it—about 700 directly and about 800 indirectly. It is also worth bearing in mind that these are isolated upland communities, so one has to wonder what else would generate that number of jobs. There is that economic benefit, and from my research it also seems that grouse moors often bring people together, so there is a social impact to the economy. Levels of loneliness in isolated rural areas where grouse shooting happens are lower than in other areas.
I did not come across any evidence that said that an alternative use would promote better natural capital than the unique environment that we are dealing with here. I do not really hear what the alternatives would be in those areas, apart from grouse shooting. If rewilding were suggested, we could have pumas, lynxes and honey badgers running wild in these areas. That would be quite an interesting spectacle, so perhaps tourism would continue to be popular, because people would like to see how that happens.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very good point. Lots of people think that woodland is a habitat for lots of wildlife, but that is not always the case. Coniferous woodland is almost devoid of wildlife. People point to the reforestation or forestation of these areas, but that actually increases the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by four to six times per hectare, compared with moorland.
Tom Hunt
That is as very good point from somebody who clearly has as level of understanding of this topic that I could only wish to have. Looking at the issue from my perspective, it seems that there are environmental arguments for and against, but the economic argument is unchallengeable, in terms of the tangible benefits that the activity brings to the lives of thousands of people in those areas.
I look forward to this debate. I understand that many people feel strongly about the issue. I do not know whether the debate will really advance things much. I predict—I might be wrong—that it will go in much the same direction as the one five years ago. I am pretty sure that we will be back here again in two or three years’ time, because it seems as though there are some individuals who are incredibly motivated to stop this practice. I fear that, for some, this is more about a dislike of perceived posh people having fun more than about any logical arguments about the pros and cons, and we would not want that kind of class warfare. I open this up to the Floor, and I look forward to the debate.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I took part in the 2016 debate, which I think it is fair to say was not the best-natured debate that we have had in this place—it is an issue that arouses strong feelings. I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for at least trying to do justice to both sides of the argument. I wrote to both Mr Speaker and the then Chair of the Petitions Committee after the last debate, because I felt that the person supposedly speaking on behalf of the petitioners sneered at them and spent the whole time rubbishing their arguments. To be respectful to the petitioners, a Member who takes on the role of speaking ought to do a neutral job in outlining what a petition is about. The hon. Member for Ipswich did that. He slightly spoilt it at the end with the argument about posh people, because that is something that was wrongly levelled at opponents of foxhunting. I do not think that is the case, and certainly the people involved in Wild Justice are absolutely passionate about conservation and are genuine in their concerns about the impact of driven grouse shooting.
The petition was interrupted by the 2019 general election. Just after that election, I joined the Petitions Committee for a few months. We were trying to get the petition debated—I think we even had a date in the diary—but covid put paid to any possibility of that. It was a good move by the Chair of the Petitions Committee to ask me to interview Chris Packham instead, and there is a transcript of my putting questions to him that we perhaps could have debated back then, which people can read on the House of Commons Petitions Committee website. I will refer to quite a bit of what Chris says in that interview during the course of my speech.
Chris has had a huge amount of abuse for speaking out on these issues—from dead animals tied to the door of his house, to death threats and so on. Whenever I speak about shooting issues, I get abuse on social media. There was a guy who sent me pictures of bacon sandwiches and spare ribs every day for 11 days—he got bored because I was not paying any attention to him. It does get quite nasty, and Chris has been on the receiving end of a lot of that, which I think is very unfortunate. He has done brilliant work with young naturalists, particularly those from neurodivergent backgrounds, and I pay tribute to him for that.
In the interview—as I said, the transcript is available—Chris started by talking about the fact that we are now facing dual climate and ecological emergencies. People are increasingly worried about what he describes as catastrophic biodiversity loss, and driven grouse shooting produces a very unhealthy landscape. That is the background context to the concerns. I asked him what he thought of the Government response—when the petition gets to 10,000 signatures, there is a brief written Government response—and he said he would be polite, but then he described it as “pathetic and derisory” and said it
“showed a depth of ignorance and wilful blindness that we didn’t want or expect.”
If that is him being polite, I would love to see what he really thinks.
In the written response, he said, “At least the Government acknowledges the importance of the peatlands and moorlands habitat. Our uplands have 75% of the world’s remaining moorland and about 13% of the world’s blanket bog.” People do not actually realise how unusual the UK is in having that as a natural resource, and we should be managing this precious habitat not for the dubious benefits of grouse shooting, but in the interests of biodiversity and ecosystem services—as valuable carbon sinks, offering flood protection and so on.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that those two are not mutually exclusive?
Kerry McCarthy
I might go on to say why it is problematic in the way they are managed. One of the problems that the campaigners supporting the petition have had is that they have got to the point where they are saying that the only answer is a ban on driven grouse shooting, because the people who manage the moorlands have not been prepared to meet them halfway and to address some of the issues—for example, the hen harrier persecution, the burning of the heather and so on.
Kevin Hollinrake
On hen harriers, is the hon. Lady aware that there were 50 hen harrier chicks in 2006, zero in 2013 and 60 last year? It is really important that we look at the evidence and do not move to emotive arguments, and it is really important that we look at the facts. Does she not accept that there is work going on to improve hen harrier breeding?
Kerry McCarthy
There is work going on, but the hen harrier population declined across the UK and the Isle of Man by 24% between 2004 and 2016, with just 575 pairs remaining. Estimates suggest that there is sufficient habitat and food availability to support a population of over 2,650 pairs. We know that in England there is available habitat for more than 300 pairs, yet we are down to a very small number.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is the point: the numbers did decline from 2006 to 2013, but now they are on the rise again. It is really important that we look at the positive work that is going on in these areas rather than just thinking that it is all about the way that moors are managed.
Kerry McCarthy
The figures are nowhere near where they should be, in terms of what we could support, and it is not just—
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Member says that the numbers are going up, but they are going up from a very small base. As I say, the figures are nowhere near where they should be.
However, the fact is that raptor persecution is illegal and should not be happening, but it is happening on the grouse moors. Regardless of what the numbers are, the death of even one hen harrier is illegal and it should not be part of grouse moor management. That is the point that we should not lose sight of. It is not just a conservation measure to protect these birds; it is illegal to kill them.
Protecting this habitat could allow it to act as a valuable carbon sinks, offer flood protection and so on. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) might have something more to say about its role in flood protection. When I went to those areas after the floods of 2015-16, and when I have spoken to people after the more recent floods in those areas, I found real concern about the impact that the management of the moorlands is having.
As Chris Packham says, a healthy upland habitat should be covered with trees, blanket bog and deep layers of sphagnum moss that act like a great sponge, with deep peat storing all the water. However, the management of grouse moors directly militates against this, with the burning of the heather, the illegal raptor persecution that I have mentioned and the extermination of mountain hares. Chris Packham also spoke about weasels and stoats being caught up in spring traps, crows caught in cage traps, foxes caught in snares and endangered protected species also accidentally being caught up, and about the use of medicated grit and the leeching of toxins from lead shot into the groundwater. The bottom line is that all these measures to protect the grouse are not in the interests of conservation; it is just so that the grouse can then be shot.
Just as I do not accept the conservation argument, I do not accept the economic argument either. As Chris Packham says, the Government have never quantified this matter. The lack of data and the lack of transparency mean that we cannot say with any degree of accuracy how much money is going where, who is benefiting and who is not benefiting.
Chris Packham says that in Scotland a bit more information has been released. Nevertheless, if Scotland was thought to be the size of Ben Nevis, the economic benefit from grouse shooting there would be the size of a small banjo. That seems to be the official interpretation. I do not know why banjos have been brought into it; I do not know the difference between a small banjo and a large banjo. He is saying that, given that the area of land given over to grouse shooting in Scotland is between 12% and 18% of the total land, something far more worthwhile than the equivalent of a small banjo, in terms of economic benefits from that area, could be produced.
Kerry McCarthy
I hope the hon. Gentleman is going to explain why the banjo comes into it.
Mr Djanogly
I am not sure about banjos, but the premise that the hon. Lady gave before was that grouse management is there for shooting birds. I would say that that is not the case. Shooting is part of the environmental process that is going on. People who engage in grouse shooting involve themselves in environmental management. Just to kill all the grouse would mean, very simply, that there would be no grouse next year. The process has to be managed for the environment.
Kerry McCarthy
I do not accept that. If we look at the way the moors are managed, we see that it is to create the largest possible number of grouse, it is to avoid anything that might be a threat to the grouse, including natural predators, and it is destroying a lot of other wildlife at the same time. All that is not so that people can stalk through the undergrowth with their gun, in the way that we might think of the country sport of shooting. It is so that busloads of people can come in, stand there and just shoot, shoot, shoot—it is very much a numbers game. I would not say that has anything to do with conservation.
The birds would not be there in those numbers if they were not being artificially managed, in the same way that we get the imported pheasants and partridges when it comes to that form of shooting; they are there to be shot. As I have said, the way that is managed is related to that intensity and the sheer number of birds that people want to produce, rather than it being about any concern for conserving the natural habitat. As I said, we just do not have the numbers. I do not know whether the Minister will come up with numbers to tell us who is benefiting from this and what contribution it makes.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The hon. Lady asks who is benefiting, but that is quite clear. There are gamekeepers in my constituency and hundreds of people are employed in the broader hospitality sector supported by shooting. Those people are benefiting. If the hon. Lady would like to meet some of the people who benefit economically from this activity, I would be delighted to host her in my constituency, where she could actually meet some of the people involved in the industry.
Kerry McCarthy
I suspect they are not benefiting to anything like the same extent as the people who own the land, many of whom are extremely wealthy. They are raking in money from this: I have seen the amount charged for some of the packages for people to come to these areas and take part in shooting days, and I suspect that not an awful lot of that trickles down to the local economy.
We need to see more action from this Government. It is very disappointing that they refused to accept Labour’s amendment to the Environment Bill on the burning of heather and peatlands—again, I think we will hear more about that from the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam. I do not believe the measures introduced by the Government on 1 May go far enough. I note the comments of the Climate Change Committee in its latest report, which was released last Wednesday: that there is an increasingly urgent need to restore degraded upland peatland and manage it more sustainably. I would be interested to hear what the Minister thinks can be done, because obviously, that comment from the Climate Change Committee came after any action that has been taken by the Government to date. I hope that in light of what the Committee has said, the Minister will consider talking to her colleagues in the Lords and strengthening the Environment Bill to address that concern.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. A great deal of Members wish to speak in this debate. If you make and take interventions, some of those people are going to be excluded—and we hope to get everybody in. We also hope to keep a good atmosphere in this debate, and not to replicate what I understand happened during the last debate on this issue.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
May I say at the outset that to ban grouse shooting would be an act of environmental, ecological and economic vandalism—not to mention a gastronomic disaster for many people in this country? Two thirds of the North York Moors national park is in my constituency—my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has the bulk of the rest—and 79% of the North Yorkshire moors and the Pennine special protection areas are grouse moors, so these habitats are recognised officially as needing protection.
When the North York Moors national park was delineated in 1952, why was it chosen? Not because it was some environmentally devastated area that needed changing, but precisely because it was the way it is now; the management of that national park over the years has been to preserve it in that way. Part of that has been the way in which the uplands are managed for grouse and the other species that benefit.
The habitat on heather moorland—dry heathland moorland, which much of the North Yorkshire moors are—is very fragile. It is rarer than rainforest, and 75% of Europe’s heather moorland is in the UK. Grouse cannot be reared in the same way as we might rear pheasants and partridges and release them: the only way we can get grouse to breed is by creating the environment for them to breed, and that fragile ecosystem needs management to ensure that not only the grouse, but other red-listed species such as the black grouse, the lapwing, the skylark, the curlew and the UK’s smallest bird of prey, the merlin, can breed and survive. Merlin numbers have doubled on grouse moors over the past 20 years; elsewhere in the country, they have halved.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned hen harriers and other raptors. One hundred years ago, there were no hen harriers in the UK at all, but the latest survey—in 2016, I think—showed that there were 545 territorial pairs. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has said that last year, 60 had fledged. I turn to other raptors. In 1963, there were 360 pairs of peregrines, but there are now 1,750; 20 years ago, there were 160 pairs of red kites, but there are now 4,400; and there are 75,250 pairs of buzzards—a sixfold increase. Recently in my own area, there were 13 buzzards circling in the sky because of the way in which the countryside has been managed and because of the legislation that has outlawed the persecution of raptors.
Why are so many species affected? The Minister and I spoke about lapwings and she remarked that she did not see many in August. The lapwings come and breed in the spring and then go back to their coastal areas, so it is important that we have these areas for birds to breed. Why is that so important? We need to control predators such as foxes, but we also need to ensure that the way the moorland is managed through rotational burning prevents the outbreak of wildfires. Indeed, on Saddleworth moor, there were 10 days of fires. A parliamentary question asked by my noble Friend Lord Botham in the other place received the answer that 72 times more CO2 was emitted over the past five years than previously, with 294,000 tonnes of CO2 resulting from wildfires.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) said at the start, grouse shooting is very important for the rural economy—not just for the gamekeepers and those involved in it, but for the hospitality that supports people when they come and the money that they put into the rural economy. Furthermore, were it not for the mixture of tall and short heather and succulent young heather, sheep farming would become increasingly difficult on the uplands.
Finally, game is a sustainable food. In fact, the other day we found a grouse at the bottom of our freezer, which we very much enjoyed. One problem during lockdown has been that the demand for game has plummeted, which has meant that, for example, the requisite number of deer have not been culled this year. There are 3 million deer in the country, and that is causing a real threat to the forestry industry in Scotland. It is important that we have this low-fat, healthy, natural food produced in an outdoor environment, which is certainly better for the environment and people’s health than a chicken reared in a very intensive broiler house.
In conclusion, the only way that we can protect the environment, the ecosystem and the rural economy is to support grouse shooting and the benefits that it brings.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, may I apologise, Ms McDonagh? I was presenting a Bill in the Chamber so I could not be here beforehand. I ran the whole way over. Forgive me—I am a wee bit short of breath. I am not as young as I was, so running is difficult.
It is a privilege to speak on this issue. The last time we had a debate on this in Westminster Hall, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) and I spoke, and it is a real pleasure to be back again. I should declare an interest: I am a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Countryside Alliance Ireland and Country Sports Ireland. I am a country sports enthusiast and also a conservationist. Indeed, I believe that one cannot be a country sports enthusiast without being a conservationist because they both march hand in hand to deliver what we want. That is why this matter is an important one to speak about.
There is no doubt that degraded peatlands emit carbon. However, it is estimated that 94% of UK peatland emissions come from lowland peatlands, not grouse moors. There is a distinct balance between what happens on grouse moors and what happens on our peatland. In fact, drainage and agricultural practices cause most peatland emissions. Grouse moors are estimated to store up to 35% of the UK’s peatland carbon, meaning that their emissions are well below other land uses. We see a far greater biodiverse habitat of species on a managed grouse moor than on other areas of moorland that are not actively managed.
I have never been on a grouse moor in Scotland. I have never shot a grouse, although I have often wished that I had the opportunity; perhaps some time that will come my way. However, one way or the other I am here to support those involved in grouse shooting. I feel very strongly about it, which is why I wanted to be here to support our shooting comrades.
There are 2,592 full-time jobs in England, Scotland and Wales on the moorlands, with 1,772 actively managing the moors. The economic value per year is worth £67 million. Then there are those who come for tourism—those from the EU and America who come to shoot on the moors and take advantage of that. There are very successful grouse shooting moors across England, Wales and Scotland.
I was interested to learn that the University of York’s peatland study, funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for five years, is now funded by over 20 organisations, including the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, Yorkshire Water, United Utilities and the Moorland Association. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, as I always look forward to what she says. I know her response today will be well worth listening to and taking on board, and will answer many issues and address the concerns that some people have.
On the pros and cons of different types of management, there is a strongly presented argument against a burning ban on blanket bog. It outlines that burning should remain part of the overall toolkit, and is concerned about the negative impacts that mowing may cause, including increased methane emissions. Over a 20-year time frame, 1 kg of methane warms the planet as much as 96 times more than 1 kg of carbon dioxide. Those facts have to be considered in relation to this petition. It is important to get the balance.
I understand concerns about upland fires, but in my opinion we need more research on the data. Controlled burning causes 68% of upland wildfires, yet only 10% of upland fires have precise data on the cause of fire. Again, that poses a question. A Natural England report specifically states:
“Care is needed in interpreting these findings given the small proportion of overall fires where a specific cause was assigned and potential bias and subjectivity in these assessments”.
According to the same report, only 8% of all upland wildfires occur in the autumn months, when the bulk of controlled burns are undertaken. I commend all of those who are involved in the management of moors for the controlled and cautious way in which they work. Some 92% of wildfires occur during the spring and summer months.
The study calls for a universal categorisation method and better recording, and I support that because it is important that we get this right. Controlled vegetation burning to reduce the fuel load and protect peatlands from wildfire is an essential tool used across the globe. Recent research from the USA shows that controlled burns can reduce wildfire risks on peatland across the globe. The evidential base supports the controlled burning of parts of the moor, so that the moor can regenerate and provide necessary food for wildlife in that area.
The BASC and the Moorland Association are part of the England and Wales Wildfire Forum. Gamekeepers play a key role in preventing and tackling wildfires, with their local knowledge and specialist equipment. When fires happened a few years ago in parts of England, it was the local gamekeepers and those involved in the management of the moors who came to the fore to give the support needed. Some of them worked 24-hour shifts and should be commended for what they did.
We all have a part to play in making the most of our grouse moorlands and it is right that questions are asked, but it is also right that we heed the research work that has been done, to ensure that we are doing our best to conserve and make the most of the phenomenal natural habitat that we have been granted. We are holding the habitat and the wildlife in trust for those who come after.
It is my reasoned belief that controlled moorland management is an intricate part of this. I support those who shoot on the moors, as well as those who manage them and those who ensure that the potential £67 million per year of tourism income is harnessed and delivered safely. Almost 3,000 jobs are involved, and they are very important, as is that potential money from tourism. I support those who ensure that the grouse moors will live on long after this auld boy is away, and maybe after my children and grandchildren.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
For the record, I declare my membership of the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation, although, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I have never personally been grouse shooting.
The constituency of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has no grouse moors, but it is home to many people who have an interest in animal welfare and to a business that supports residents who enjoy shooting as a recreation, albeit with no live animals involved locally. As a consequence, I have had the opportunity hear from constituents on both sides of the debate today.
Humans have shaped our environment enormously over many centuries. As a consequence, all of us living today have a responsibility to protect and enhance our environment whether or not we approve of what previous generations did or of what future generations might have planned for it. Whether our moorlands or many of our fishing rivers, our natural environment has been shaped by human activity over generations. The biodiversity around us today is a result of those actions.
One of the issues cited most often is that of heather burning. That habitat management is required if we want the habitat to continue to prosper. There are clearly two major benefits from the burning. First, it promotes the new growth of heather and grass, which supports a wide range of wildlife in addition to grouse, including curlew, lapwing and golden plover, as well as deer and hares.
Even more important from a human perspective is the prevention of wildfires, as a number of Members have mentioned. Back in 2003, for example, a wildfire on the National Trust’s Bleaklow destroyed more than 2,000 acres of rare habitat and all the heather on the neighbouring 2,500-acre moor. The sad reality is that the CO2 levels—a climate change issue—being released from wildfires has increased dramatically in the last five years. If we want to prevent and reduce those emissions, controlled firebreaks are a necessary part of our toolkit. The practice has many different names depending on where we are in the country, but the idea behind prescribed burning is that it is a quick burn that removes the canopy and does not affect the underlying peat or soil layer that is so important to the biodiversity of our environment.
The other theme running through the debate is our feelings about animal welfare-related issues and the distaste that many people feel about the idea of killing live creatures for fun. Although I share that sentiment, I also recognise that in the UK and throughout the world, different forms of hunting are not just an essential part of good husbandry of nature; they also underpin the funding that enables conservation and biodiversity efforts to proceed, both in the United Kingdom and across the world. Where we humans have created an ecosystem, we have a responsibility to manage it. Those who are proposing bans on the actions that they personally dislike need also to consider who will undertake and pay for the husbandry of those animal populations, so that familiar problems such as parasite infections and out-of-control predation do not simply replace one unpleasant fate with another.
Put bluntly, the ecosystem that we have created requires the management of animal numbers. In my view, it is much better to do that in a way that supports the economy of that ecosystem so that animals killed with a purpose are being eaten, contributing to the conservation and welfare of that animal population, rather than abdicating our responsibilities to the detriment of biodiversity and animal welfare at home and aboard.
To conclude, we need to consider the net effect of our decisions on our environment. It seems clear to me that the proposed ban is likely to produce a net disadvantage to our environment and our biodiversity, and must therefore be opposed.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who made an argument that I entirely agree with far more eloquently than I could. I am also a member of the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation, of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and of the Countryside Alliance.
Before I get into my main points, I associate myself with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) about the value of game meat as a healthy food choice. Although a grouse that has been lingering at the bottom of his freezer for some years is not the best way to be introduced to the wonderful taste of grouse, I heartily encourage everybody who has not tried that tasty, wonderful meat to do so.
Those who understand grouse moor management and the benefits that it brings know full well that the real evidence shows that a ban on driven grouse shooting would make life worse, not better, for the wildlife that the opponents of shooting purport to want to protect. This issue needs to be debated on the facts, not on accusations motivated by a wider anti-shooting agenda. As Members have said, shooting is an integral part of environmental management and conservation. It is the gamekeepers employed by shooting estates who make that happen. It is gamekeepers who maintain the habitat and control predators, which benefits threatened species of ground-nesting birds.
Grouse moor management has played a key role in maintaining our upland landscape and sustaining some of our rarest plants and wildlife. Far from being the baron landscapes that I have heard described by some, grouse moors are incredibly important wildlife havens. Moors managed by gamekeepers support up to five times more threatened wading birds such as the curlew. Merlin numbers have doubled on grouse moors over the last 20 years, and 2020 was the best year for hen harrier breeding in England for two decades, with 60% of their nests on land managed for grouse shooting. I could go on with many more conservation success stories as a result of grouse moors that are well managed by gamekeepers, but time is tight.
It is not as if grouse shooting is not already heavily regulated and controlled. There is extensive legislation in place that has an impact on almost every aspect of grouse shooting and grouse moor management. Licensing requirements are in place across the board. Any additional legislation would add to the cost and bureaucracy of grouse moor management, leaving our moors in a worse condition.
It is important to recognise the economic benefits that shooting sports bring to rural communities. Grouse shooting in the United Kingdom has a direct estimated value of £100 million, creating the equivalent of over 2,500 full-time jobs. Between 60% and 80% of direct spending from grouse moors is within the local area of that moor. It is of greater significance to the local economy and community retention than any other form of activity. Because grouse moors are managed largely through private investment by their owners, they offer the most cost-effective model of upland management to the taxpayer. I genuinely wonder how those who want driven grouse shooting to end would fund and manage those vast moors, staff their management and pay for it.
Grouse shooting brings the rural community together in areas that can struggle with social isolation and lack of employment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) said. In addition to those who are shooting, a day’s driven grouse shooting involves a large number of other participants, bringing together up to 50 or so members of a local community of all ages and backgrounds. It underpins the social life of many communities and helps tackle rural isolation.
Let us be really clear: grouse shooting is good for jobs, the environment, species conservation and attracting high-quality tourism to remote rural areas—all without being a drain on the taxpayer. Those who are pushing for it to be banned have made no assessment of the ecological, social or economic costs. The evidence shows that the real conservationists are not those who call for grouse shooting to be criminalised; they are the hard-working gamekeepers who manage our moorlands day in, day out. Those calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting need to set out a viable alternative—an alternative vision for our uplands. Our heather moorland is internationally important, and it is widely recognised that grouse shooting has helped preserve it.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I will try to be a little briefer than I planned, because lots of Members have made great contributions already, and I do not want to reiterate what they have said.
I am very concerned about the petition and the circle of destruction it would cause for the rural communities in my constituency, both economic and environmental. I am afraid I could not disagree more with the petitioners, mainly because of the huge economic value that grouse shooting has to my constituency. It is not just about the shooting itself and the gamekeepers; it is the huge amount of part-time jobs in the season and the huge amount of trade that comes with the industry, particularly for my hospitality sector. That sector has been absolutely hammered by covid over the past couple of years, and we are trying to push domestic tourism, especially in places such as the north Pennines and County Durham. We are not quite as well known as where my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) is, down on the North Yorkshire moors, but we should be. This is a real area of growth for us, and something we want to capitalise on, so it is important that we do not start to cut the legs off from under the sector, just as we are recovering from covid.
Another point to make is that almost all our landscapes in the UK are managed to a greater or lesser degree. As hon. Members have said, the danger of non-management is that huge increase we have seen in wildfires. That is the real danger, which comes from the release of carbon into our atmosphere. Heather burning is an issue. When a wildfire catches in deep peat, that really is an issue, and something with which proper management by gamekeepers and the communities in my upland areas is really helpful.
Another issue that is a major concern is over-management, as we have seen in the past. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) wondered whether there might be more productive things we could do with the uplands. Well, we tried that back in the 1950s, when we put grips into the peat moorland to drain it for sheep grazing. We saw an ecological catastrophe, with millions of tonnes of peat washed down the rivers and off the moors over the succeeding decades. Peat is one of the biggest carbon capturers and stores in the country. In January last year, I was lucky enough to have the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs up in my constituency, seeing some of those grips being filled in, so now we have peat returning as a massive natural carbon capture and storage facility.
Recently, I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) to see some well managed moorlands, and the lapwings and the oystercatchers there. It shows a degree of ignorance of the facts when, clearly, so many communities are involved and so many gamekeepers work on these estates. One of the secondary things that states are increasingly looking to do is to support birding—people doing birdwatching and that sort of thing. That is a major driver locally for a lot of people to come to the north Pennine moors.
I will pick up on something that a couple of my hon. Friends mentioned, which is the game itself. Obviously, we need to make more positive moves—steel shot is part of that—to increase the reusable meat. However, we also need to sell it properly, and that is something that we as parliamentarians could definitely be involved in, including here in Parliament.
From Muggleswick to Wearhead in my constituency, I support those in my villages who work on the moors, whether full time or during the season, and I support my local hospitality sector in North West Durham, which benefits from that. I ask the petitioners and those who support them to think again about the actual economic and environmental impacts of what they propose on communities such as those I represent in the north of England.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh.
I do not accept that we should ban driven grouse shooting, and nor do I accept that there is a wilful blindness to the issues. I point out to the petitioners that, although I am sure their concerns are earnestly expressed, there is a blindness in some quarters to the positive impact on the people, economy, environment and wildlife of these areas from our management of grouse moors.
To take matters in turn, I think the petition says grouse shooting is “bad for people”. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) referred to our constituencies jointly covering the beautiful North York Moors, and I fail to see how it is bad for people that tens of thousands of them enjoy the beautiful purple and green-carpeted North York Moors, which for their wellbeing alone must have huge value. The landscape would simply not look like that if it was not managed in that way.
I have been up to the moors with the gamekeepers on a number of occasions, looking at different parts of the moors in my constituency. The parts that are being managed are green and purple; the areas that are left unmanaged as trials have increased canopy, and they are very grey and very poor in terms of wildlife—it is completely different. Left unmanaged, the moors just would not look like they do today, and visitors would be far less likely to come.
Of course, that would affect the farming communities, which are deeply embedded in the world of conservation. In my view, the people who understand conservation more than anybody else are the people who have lived in these areas all their lives, not necessarily the people who are opining on this stuff from further afield. The point has been made that leaving the moors unmanaged would be tremendously bad for the people who work in the supply chain and all the businesses.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made a fair point: perhaps those people would find other jobs. I really do not see where they would find other jobs in North Yorkshire to the level that they have. A huge number of people are employed in the hotels and restaurants and as caterers, beaters or gamekeepers. People from all different social strata are involved in the whole economy around the grouse moors and grouse shooting. As pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), the sector provides £2 billion to the UK economy and 1,500 full-time equivalent jobs. There are huge benefits to people in constituencies such as mine in terms of the wider economy and their wellbeing, so I do not accept that grouse shooting is bad for people.
I also not do accept that grouse shooting is bad for the environment. The point has been made that the moorlands are rarer than rainforest, and they host a huge amount of flora and fauna, but also wildlife. Again, I saw two patches when I went up to the North York Moors. In the patches that have been managed, there is a proliferation of curlews, golden plovers and lapwings literally teeming round the moors. In the areas that are deliberately not being managed as a trial, however, there is very little wildlife. The moors are very conducive to wildlife, and I think the statistic is that there are five times as many rare birds in the managed areas as in the unmanaged ones.
The estates in my constituency are Snilesworth, Bransdale and Spaunton. As has been mentioned, they have an important role to play in preventing wildfires, which can be hugely damaging. The Climate Change Committee commented on this issue only this month in a report on climate risk. It highlighted the prospect of increased frequency and intensity of wildfires, stating:
“we can manage habitats actively to improve their resilience, for example through…the removal of…fuel loads that risk wildfire.”
That is what happens when a canopy gets too big. The canopy then burns and burns the peat. What the people who manage the moorlands do is called cool burning, which takes away the canopy without burning the peat. That is absolutely critical. It is carbon-neutral, because the new growth absorbs the carbon that has been emitted, but there is no release of carbon from the peat layer, which is hugely important.
The other point about CO2, which we are all obviously increasingly concerned about, comes from a report by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust on alternative uses for the moors, which states:
“Peatlands managed for cropland, grassland, forestry (for example afforestation of moorland) or fuel harvesting emit many times more at around eight to 39 tonnes CO2 per hectare per year”
versus 2 to 5 tonnes on moorlands, so it is clear that there are climate change benefits here as well.
On wildlife, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby is absolutely right. When I was child, we never saw buzzards. I do not remember ever seeing a buzzard as a child, even though we spent most of our time outdoors. Now, there are a huge number always circling in the sky. Some relevant statistics come from Spaunton Moor and George Winn-Darley, who is the representative of the North York Moors to the Moorland Association. In a single year, there have been 1,552 sightings of birds of prey, including 10 hen harriers, three white-tailed sea eagles, 70 merlins, 193 kestrels, 16 short-eared owls, 163 barn owls, 84 peregrines, 14 marsh harriers, one osprey, 50 red kites, 57 tawny owls and 726 buzzards—I could go on. Extrapolated across the whole moor, that would be 25,000 sightings of those very rare birds. As I mentioned, the number of hen harriers is on the rise.
The hon. Member for Bristol East is absolutely right that we should work together to clamp down on wildlife crime against birds of prey and any kind of crime against wildlife, but the incidence is very low. No incidents at all were reported in 2018-19.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. I apologise for interrupting, but I must highlight to the hon. Gentleman that there are two more Members who wish to speak, and we are attempting to get to the winding-up speeches at 5.30 pm.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will conclude on this point. It is absolutely right that we should clamp down on any wildlife crime, including against birds of prey. Wild Justice was responsible for some changes to general licences that make it much more difficult to control other types of birds, such as gulls, which have a devastating impact on chicks—grouse chicks, lapwing chicks and curlew chicks. We have to ensure that we take steps carefully, and they must be evidence-based.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. Thank you for giving me permission to be excused at the start of the debate—I was in the main Chamber speaking on a private Member’s Bill.
The petition states:
“grouse shooting is bad for people, the environment and wildlife”,
while arguing that it is “economically insignificant”. I am afraid I must dispute that in the strongest terms, and I will outline my reasons. Just last year, Professor Simon Denny and Tracey Latham-Green of the Institute of Social Innovation and Impact at the University of Northampton concluded an economic study looking at the social effects of integrated moorland management, including grouse shooting, on moorland communities, and I want to share some of their findings.
First, on the positive impact of grouse shooting on the rural economy, the direct economic benefit of grouse shooting to rural communities is estimated to be £67.7 million per annum. The direct impact is thought to be as high as £2 billion to the country. In England, grouse moor management is responsible for more than 1,500 full-time jobs, of which 700 are directly involved in grouse moor management, and a further 820 are in related services and industries. That has a huge impact on remote rural communities, which would otherwise have limited economic opportunity.
Research has shown that the associated spin-offs of grouse shooting in the north of England are worth an estimated £15 million a year and benefit a raft of rural businesses, including game dealers, the hospitality industry, equipment suppliers and transport operators, many of whom are based in the most remote areas. As one of the joint authors of the report concluded,
“grouse moor management is part of an integrated system of activities”,
including a whole range of things benefiting health, wellbeing and the economic prosperity of local communities.
That brings me to my second point, on the positive impact on moorland management of grouse shooting, and on wider conservation measures, which include peatland restoration, carbon sequestration and improving habitats for many other ground-nesting birds. More carbon is stored in peat in UK moorlands than in the combined forests of Britain and France. Therefore, careful management of moorland as part of grouse moorland management is essential to preserve the carbon that is locked up in the underlying peat. Grouse moorland managers have been actively working on a number of projects, including revegetating bare peat and blocking up moorland drains to raise water tables to encourage the growth of sphagnum moss, which helps the flow of surface water and filters out any discolouration. In the north Pennines alone, I know from my own experience that grouse moor managers have blocked more than 2,500 miles of drain ditches, and 300 acres of bare peat have been revegetated, with plenty more still planned.
Research has shown that where moors are managed by groundkeepers, ground-nesting birds, such as curlew and lapwings, are three and a half times as likely to raise a chick to fledgling. A survey of upland breeding birds in parts of England and Scotland has found that the densities of golden plover, curlew, redshank and lapwing are five times greater on managed grouse moorlands than on unmanaged moor. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said, the mosaic of species of flora and fauna is widely known on managed grouse moorland. All of that is possible only where moorland is carefully managed, with the income gained from grouse shooting put back into helping to cover the costs associated with managing the land, protecting that carbon storage.
To conclude, it is vital to take a wide-lens approach to grouse shooting, rather than look at it from a headline political point of view. It creates jobs and is good for the rural economy, the environment, conservation and carbon storage.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I would like to offer Mr Djanogly two minutes.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Thank you, Ms McDonagh. I declare my interests as they appear in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a game shooter and as a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.
This has been a good-tempered and interesting debate, but it is unfortunate that the premise of the petition lacks the understanding—or perhaps the willingness to acknowledge—that grouse shooting is all about working with the environment. Specifically and directly on the moors, where the game birds live and breed, grouse are not imported. They are natural to their moors, and great respect must be given to maintaining that environment. That is why they are magnificent parts of the country to visit. The environmental care of grouse shooting is very strong, and it seems that to argue otherwise is more about being anti-shooting than pro-environment.
The problem with the premise of the argument of the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is that I think she said something about rich people maximising the number of birds to be killed for profit. Actually, very few grouse shoots are run at a profit. They are run by people who are passionate about their sport and about managing the environment. It is about peat, other species, local jobs and preparing the ground for walkers and tourists. It is simply untrue to say that this is just about shooting game. It is about preserving for future generations some of the finest environments in the UK by effectively managing them.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Thank you for making this a bit easier to chair, Mr Djanogly. I think I am right in suggesting that the next speakers can have nine minutes each, leaving one minute for the summing up. I call Dave Doogan of the Scottish National party.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Thank you, Ms McDonagh. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I am happy that this debate has received a substantive airing and am grateful to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for advancing it in his role on the Petitions Committee. I understand and respect the fact that he had no control over the title of the petition, which personally I find a little troublesome, because it gives the sense that if I do not see things in exactly the same way as others see them, I am somehow wilfully blind. That is not a very appropriate start to such an important and nuanced debate.
Turning to legislation, in a whole host of ways the UK’s bureaucracy and Executive trail in the wake of Scotland’s dynamism under 14 years of SNP Government. Members can take their pick from policy areas, including net zero targets, social care reform, tuition fees, rate relief, tree planting—the list goes on, and it includes the ambition for grouse moor management. By contrast, the dead slow and stop approach by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the challenge is unacceptable and does not benefit anybody on either side of this challenging debate.
In Scotland, the independent grouse moor management report, which is also known as the Werritty report, was published at the end of 2019. It took a comprehensive and consultative evidence-based approach to key issues surrounding the management of grouse moors in 21st-century Scotland. After careful consideration of the report’s recommendations, the Scottish Government will look at implementing a licensing regime for grouse shooting, providing a framework to the sector that will assist it in combating illegal persecution of raptors and related wildlife crimes. Grass moor estates found to be non-compliant—those that practise the types of behaviours that nobody wants to see—would face the prospect of not having a licence, whereas those that uphold the very best practices would be endorsed and licensed as undertaking a legal and productive activity. Those changes are designed to apply an achievable balance; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked at length about the importance of a balance, and other hon. Members have discussed the need for evidence.
This approach is designed to apply that achievable balance on protecting wildlife and natural habitats, while ensuring that business adheres to the agreed standards on grouse shooting. Importantly, the report did not recommend that grouse shooting be banned, consistent with the remit to ensure that grouse moor management continues to contribute to the rural economy of Scotland, but it did recommend that heather burning be subject to increased legal regulation applicable to all moor burning, not just grouse moors.
As with all good debates, there are pros and cons; positives and negatives. Scottish Land and Estates will maintain that raptor persecution on Scottish grouse moors has been addressed in recent years. Police-recorded crimes are at their lowest level ever. It will cite evidence that predators such as foxes and crows are managed on grouse moors to maintain a favourable balance with their prey, and that is scientifically proven to save rare and declining birds such as the curlew, lapwing, golden plover and black grouse, as well as mountain hares. Many hon. Members, especially the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Robert Goodwill), cited the recovery of some of those important breeds.
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation will definitely share the views of a Scottish Land and Estates. It will share its view that muirburn supports other species and prevents larger fires from occurring. Both would contend that in moorland areas, grouse shooting is one of the most economically significant land uses, bringing in full-time permanent jobs and supporting local communities. I know that to be true.
As cons, the League Against Cruel Sports would claim that driven grouse shooting depends on creating artificially high numbers of grouse in order to make it commercially viable. That is achieved by large-scale elimination of natural predation and the engineering of environments in their favour. The petitioners will highlight what they suggest would be significant public support for an end to shooting of game birds such as grouse for sport. I have seen a figure of 69% of the British public in favour of a ban. Those questions need to be nuanced and contextualised for the consequences, not just the broad and bare ambition and aspiration. Finally, on the cons, the annual “Birdcrime” report by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said that in 2009, four of the five worst areas in the UK for raptor persecution over the previous 10 years in Scotland were the highlands, the Scottish Borders, Aberdeenshire and, I am afraid, Angus.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) highlighted the lack of a UK Government economic impact assessment. That same absence is not evident in Scotland. The economic impact of the sector in Scotland was set out by research commissioned by the Scottish Government and published in autumn 2020, “A summary report of findings from research into socioeconomic and biodiversity impacts of driven grouse moors and the employment rights of gamekeepers”. The case study used in that published research showed that grouse shooting can generate a significant economic impact for communities, with impacts being generally localised.
Reflecting on my own constituency, I know very keenly how important employment on the estates is for communities in the Angus Glens—for the schools, hotels, shops and the petrol station. The total absence in those communities of alternative employment means that the number of potential job losses is not as important as the effect of those job losses on those communities.
We must not let anyone kid themselves that this is an issue of just one job here or another job there; it is about the living viability of very fragile, very rural communities and economies. No sector can operate in isolation, indifferent to the public opinion or the evolving nature of society and the division of standards of normative behaviours. An honest assessment would identify the fact that the industry has made improvements to its operating model, as has been set out. That must continue, especially in the light of the challenges around muirburn, lead shot and losses to natural predation, particularly aviation predation. Any demand for outright bans on established economic models, with the jobs and livelihoods of my constituents at risk, leaves me very concerned. Reforms, if required, need to be evidence-based and founded on consensus.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh. I thank hon. Members for their excellent contributions to a good-natured debate on a hot topic. I thank the petitioners for signing the petition and the Committee for arranging time for us to discuss this important issue.
I have lived near the moors all my life and I recognise that they are special places, particularly given my Yorkshire heritage. They have inspired great works of literature, songs, and so much more. We have heard many Members speak passionately about how the moors matter to them, including the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is really clear that they are rich environments that people are keen to see protected.
It is perhaps obvious to say as a starting point to any sensible policy on grouse shooting that grouse moors are not natural landscapes. They are a form of managed land, and how they are managed has consequences for how we deal with the twin emergencies of nature and climate. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Protecting biodiversity, halting the decline of nature and restoring habitats and wildlife are a priority, not just because they are key to tackling the climate emergency, which I will talk about shortly, but also because it is intrinsically important to protect species and ensure that wildlife can be enjoyed by everyone.
Unfortunately, despite the efforts of DEFRA on crime, the persecution of birds is still a huge issue. As a hen harrier champion, I feel obliged to highlight the fact that the hen harrier is one example of a species under threat in the UK. As we have heard from many Members, between 2004 and 2016, the hen harrier population dropped by nearly a quarter—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for highlighting that. Natural England has shown that hen harriers are 10 times more likely to die or disappear on grouse moors—that needs to change—and found that 72% of birds that were tagged were either confirmed or extremely likely to have been killed illegally.
Although chick numbers have been increasing, unfortunately, moorlands are still described as black holes for certain species. Since the 2018 launch of the controversial brood management scheme, which involves removing chicks from their nests, a further 56 hen harriers have been killed, or their satellite tags have stopped working with no evidence of malfunction, mostly on or next to driven grouse moors. The illegal killing of protected wildlife, especially birds of prey and other predators, seems to be routinely linked to areas where there are grouse moors. We need to ensure that we take more action to prevent those crimes, which I think is a sentiment that has been shared throughout the debate.
This is not just about hen harriers. A Scottish Government study found that a third of golden eagles fitted with satellite tags disappeared in suspicious circumstances. Those are just a few examples of lost biodiversity because the land seems to be managed to eliminate predators to provide more fertile grounds for grouse. That is illustrative of how illegal habitat management can damage the abundance of a species.
As I said, the nature and climate emergencies go hand in hand. Last week, the CCC report was clear that protecting our peatlands is a precondition for meeting our net zero obligations and mitigating the effects of the global heating that we already see. There is a huge amount of work to be done, and there is therefore a huge opportunity for jobs in conservation in our uplands. The majority of our peatlands are in poor condition, even in sites of special scientific interest, and as the CCC says, the effort required to restore them all will be huge.
Post-war draining and burning over the years have also had a huge impact on flooding. It is rare to observe healthy peatlands that store water effectively. Rewetting our peatlands would not only be good for other species, such as curlews, but would help with flood prevention. That is why we must see an end to heather burning being used to create a suitable habitat for grouse. I must say that a number of colleagues who have spoken today seem to be a bit behind their own Government on this issue, as the Government have introduced a ban, although it has limitations that I will come on to later.
We have seen huge amounts of carbon being leaked into the atmosphere over the years, with increased burning year on year. Burning releases roughly 260,000 tonnes of carbon per year, but that is compounded by the damage to the peatland that follows. Our degraded peatlands release 10 million tonnes of carbon per year. Not only does heather burning make the climate emergency worse but it makes the effects of the climate emergency more dramatic.
We have seen that the damage to sphagnum mosses on peatlands causes water to run off the uplands, taking peat with it and affecting the quality of our water, which we have to spend a lot of money on to clean up. Species loss, peatland degradation and higher flood risks are just three costs of managing the landscape artificially. Despite that, however, the shoots remain almost completely deregulated. There are few mechanisms to encourage good behaviour and there is very little to discourage bad behaviour, and the criminal activity does not seem to be ending.
Although Labour has pushed in the Environment Bill for a fuller ban on burning, alternatives such as rewetting and cutting must be supported more fully to reach their full potential, economically and environmentally. In addition, I think the idea that the grouse are ending up on our plates is quite misleading. Only a very small number ever end up entering hospitality settings, unfortunately, and the use of lead is questionable, with even low levels of exposure to lead being linked to health problems. Indeed, even those just using lead shot can develop health conditions.
That is why today I ask the Minister whether she will introduce licensing for grouse shoots in England, as is Labour party policy. Licensing would provide another method to ensure that these habitats are managed responsibly and that the system is more regulated. I also ask her what the plans are to phase out the use of lead shot in grouse-moor shooting. What plans are there to protect valuable non-bird species as well as bird species, such as mountain hares, and if there is to be no licensing, what steps will the Government take to ensure that those who illegally kill protected species and other birds of prey and predators are brought to justice? One issue that has not been mentioned is the steps that the relevant regulatory authorities will take to ensure that residues of other medications used for the rearing of grouse do not get into the wider upland environment, particularly as much of it is in drinking-water catchment areas.
Finally, I make a plea to the Minister. When she responds to the debate, rather than rattling off a list of initiatives that are loosely connected to peat—we have read the peatlands action plan—I would specifically like to hear what the Government will do about the 60% of peatlands that remain unprotected from burning under the so-called ban that was recently brought into law. I thank Members for the way in which they have conducted this debate today; I know that it is a very emotive topic.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I call the Minister, Victoria Prentis, to respond to the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Thank you, Ms McDonagh; it is actually Rebecca Pow.
Rebecca Pow
This matter comes under my portfolio. There seems to be a little bit of confusion, but I am Rebecca—just in case there is any confusion about that. I see that Minister Prentis’s name was written on the details for the debate. Anyway, that is the least controversial of the issues that we are discussing today. Having said that, I thank all hon. Friends and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), who made a very clear and balanced opening speech.
Clearly, there is a great deal of strong feeling about this issue and people approach it from different perspectives. However, I think that everyone agrees that we want to protect our uplands, the wildlife that thrives there and indeed the people who live there. Grouse shooting, which is what we are talking about today, takes place in one of our most iconic landscapes—the uplands. The uplands are composed of multiple habitats: dry heath; wet heath; and blanket bog.
Blanket bog is rarer than the tropical rainforest and we have a very large proportion of it in the UK, with 13% of the world’s total. The uplands are very precious and accommodate a wide range of activities, which we have heard about today: hiking, all forms of tourism, shooting grouse, grazing sheep, and many more. Blanket bog provides a rich habitat for many species and sequesters carbon, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) mentioned, filters out drinking water and helps us with our flood control. The grouse shooting that many people inevitably get involved in attracts people to these treasured habitats. They are engaging with nature, which I see as a good thing.
The activity of grouse shooting does indeed bring jobs to the area, and we have heard different numbers—from 1,500 to over 2,000—from different colleagues. It also brings investment to some of the remotest areas of the country, particularly in the north of England. That was mentioned by many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who has a great deal of experience, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The matter is devolved, but it is the same issue. It was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), particularly with respect to the wider tourism element, and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who summed it up so well. It is about close working between land managers and stakeholders to ensure that the landscapes in those areas are protected both for conservation and for shooting, and that they can work together for a sustainable outcome.
One of the ways in which moorlands have been managed for grouse shooting is by burning vegetation, which has been touched on by many Members. The Government have always been clear about the need to phase out rotational burning on protected blanket bog and to move to a regime of cutting. There has been a lot of debate and discussion about that with stakeholders, and they are clear about that now. It is about conserving habitats on the protected sites of blanket bog. There is established scientific consensus that burning of vegetation on such sites damages the environment in a variety of ways—hence the move to cutting. The Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021 came into force on 1 May and represents a crucial step in meeting the Government’s nature and climate change mitigation and adaptation targets, including the legally binding commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
We are of course aware of the Climate Change Committee’s views, as flagged by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I want to give assurances that we are taking extremely seriously peatland restoration, as flagged by the Committee. We had already allocated £10 million between 2018 and 2021, which will lead to the restoration of 6,500 hectares of peatland, but we have also committed to a further 35,000 hectares of peatland restoration under the new Nature for Climate Fund. We have just allocated the first tranche of that £50 million to be spent over the next four years on peatland restoration, and it will happen in lots of the areas that we are all talking about. That will be by 2025, so we have made a very serious and clear commitment. It will also have benefits for carbon sequestration, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. As has been alluded to, there are a few specific and narrowly defined areas where burning may be permitted on protected sites. We have published guidance and are still working on it closely with everybody involved because we need to get this right for a sustainable future.
The issue of wildfires was rightly raised by many Members on both sides of the House, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, the hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). The Government are of course acutely aware of the wildfire risk presented by the dry conditions on moorlands. Some of the clearest evidence points to the fact that improving the resilience of our peatlands to wildfire, by ensuring that they are wetter and in their natural state, is one of the ways to control wildfires. Our recently released peat action plan encourages all landowners and land managers to have good-quality wildfire management plans in order to look out for that risk. Under the regulations, the Secretary of State may grant licences where he is satisfied that it is absolutely necessary or expedient for the purpose of preventing wildfires, with the very careful management required should that take place.
I want to talk a bit more about the peat action plan, which was published in May and sets out our long-term vision for the protection, management and restoration of our peatlands. That is there for all to see, and it is very clear about what our ambitions are. That action plan also contains strong measures on delivering nature-based solutions so that lots of the activities we do on peat will work towards this whole nature restoration move. Obviously, there will be an important emphasis on rewetting and working with hydrology so that we get our moorlands back to their natural state.
By managing those moorlands to create the optimum habitats for grouse, land managers can play a really important role in conservation, particularly for ground nesting birds, as has been referred to by many Members. Heather moorlands are important habitats for some of our most iconic birds of prey, such as hen harriers, and there has been an increase in hen harrier numbers. That has been clearly highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and by a number of other Members. We have also seen an increase in the numbers of a whole range of other bird species, including buzzards and peregrines.
That is not to say that there are not issues of persecution. We are aware that those issues exist, and the Government take wildlife crime extremely seriously. Since 2016, DEFRA and the Home Office have contributed £300,000 annually to the National Wildlife Crime Unit. I campaigned for that as a Back Bencher, and the Government have listened. We are still funding that work, and it is really important. Under the regime, the police are working very hard to protect our birds and prevent the illegal killing of birds of prey. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol East welcomes that funding. The five species identified as of particular concern are the golden eagle, the goshawk, the hen harrier, the peregrine, and the white-tailed eagle.
Turning to the issue of wider biodiversity, our aim is to address the overall decline of species in England. We will therefore amend the Environment Bill to include an additional legally binding target that aims to halt the decline of species by 2030. We will also introduce, through the Bill, a new species conservation strategy to help with that, as well as a Green Paper setting out our framework so that we might better deliver species protection in the round. I am sure that all hon. Friends and Members will welcome that. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee is working on that issue right now and will make recommendations towards the end of this year.
To touch on the Werritty review, mentioned by the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), we do not have plans to introduce similar measures, but we are watching Scotland closely. We can all learn lessons all round in whatever we do, and we will be watching to see how that proceeds.
There are strong views on either side of this debate, and I welcome the fact that it did not get really heated today. We need to have understanding on either side, and I hope that, as the Minister, I do have that understanding. We need to look after and protect the environment, while looking after our rural communities and enabling them to survive and thrive. That is so important. For me, the key word in all of this and, indeed, almost everything I do in DEFRA is sustainability. I will conclude there, and thank everyone who has taken part.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I thank the Minister and apologise once again for getting her name wrong.
Tom Hunt
I thank the Minister and everyone who has contributed to this debate. Well, there we have it: with respect to the petitioners, there is clearly not support in this House for the petition. In fact, there is probably less support than there was four years ago. What is not clear is that banning driven grouse shooting would be good for the environment: in fact, I think that, on balance, it would be harmful. What is very clear is that banning it would seem to provide very little gain for a great deal of pain, and from what I can see the pain would be in those isolated rural communities. The people paying the greatest cost would not be the richest; they would be the very people who, right now, we should be thinking about helping. After quite a balanced opening, and having listened to everything, I would like to say that as an individual Member of Parliament, I oppose this petition.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate for helping me ensure that everybody could speak.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 266770, relating to grouse shooting.
Government Contracts: Covid-19
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice, to support the new hybrid arrangements. The timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate.
I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall and that they are expected to remain for the entire debate. I remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room.
If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks on westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 328408, relating to Government contracts during the covid-19 outbreak.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. Some £31.2 billion has been spent on contracts in response to the outbreak of covid-19. It might be more now, but that was the figure I found last week. Anyway, what is a couple of million quid between mates? I say “between mates”, as a huge amount of money has been channelled into lining the pockets of the pals of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson)—the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Prime Minister’s former adviser Dominic Cummings and others. I have been an MP for slightly more than four years now, and I am slightly disappointed that I have had nothing offered to me. I do not move in those circles, unfortunately—or, fortunately.
When researching for this debate, I uncovered some great investigative work. I am grateful to all the journalists, lawyers and campaigners who have shed some light on the deals that have been struck over the past 17 months or so. I encourage people who want to know more about what is going on to look at the Good Law Project website or Sophie Hill’s My Little Crony project.
Transparency International has produced a scathing report about the state of procurement during the pandemic response. I quote its findings when I say that the evidence shows that the UK’s procurement response to the pandemic was beset by
“opaque and uncompetitive contracting…a suspiciously high number of awards to those with political connections…the system designed to triage offers of PPE supplies appears partisan and riven with systemic bias.”
I thank the petition creators and its signatories, who have enabled this debate to be held in Parliament. Those campaigners have shed some light on the contracts that have been awarded by the Government, and I would like to give a short taste of what has been happening behind closed doors while our frontline workers have battled to keep us safe from the disease.
First, there is the £560,000 to Public First, a communications agency run by old mates of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office and Dominic Cummings. The High Court ruled that the contract was unlawful and tainted by “apparent bias”. Samir Jassal, former No. 10 adviser to David Cameron and twice a parliamentary candidate for the Conservatives, was handed a £102.6 million contract for personal protective equipment. To be fair, at least the company in this case, Pharmaceuticals Direct, seems to have a history in providing medical equipment, given its appropriate name. However, the contract was again awarded without tender. What is more, even after the Prime Minister insisted in the main Chamber that all covid contracts were on the record, no details of that one were revealed until after the Good Law Project wrote to the Government about it. They were nine months late in providing those details.
A contract for nearly half a billion pounds was given to Randox with no tendering process. In fact, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire, who was paid £100,000 a year by Randox, was party to a call to the Health Minister in the other place, Lord Bethell, when the contract was extended. That extension came after 750,000 tests had to be recalled because they were not sterile.
There was also a contract with a jeweller. One part of the reported £250 million-worth of contracts is most interesting—namely, the £70.5 million contract to buy sterile gowns, almost all of which could not be used because the contract did not request the double packaging used in sterile settings. The jeweller, Michael Saiger, based in Florida, used a middleman to arrange logistics, and he earned over $16 million from the deal. Again, the contract was published unlawfully late.
A £425 million contract was handed to Edenred to supply free school meals, again without a tendering process. This is a company that the National Audit Office said showed “limited evidence” of its capacity to deliver meals to children in need. In fact, the families who waited nearly a week to receive vouchers would probably say that there was absolutely no evidence that it could deliver meals.
Sticking with school meals, will the Minister confirm whether any due diligence was carried out before a contract was signed with Chartwells to provide those meals? A quick search might have raised some questions even before a food parcel of a few pieces of fruit, a tin of beans, two carrots, a malt loaf, a block of cheese and a loaf of bread were delivered. I know it is difficult for some people to imagine having to survive on such meagre rations, but when some are able to secure contracts and cushy jobs, I cannot imagine they will want for much at all.
The head of Test and Trace for the UK, Baroness Harding, a chum of David Cameron, has overseen much of the maligned scheme, which has so far cost £37 billion. That is enough for five Mars Rover missions, which is incredible. Where has the money gone? Well, we have been paying thousands of private sector consultants, most on well over £1,000 a day and some even over £6,000 a day. The Public Accounts Committee was pretty scathing in its assessment of the whole thing and found that the system does not seem to have made much of a difference to the spread of covid-19.
Some people might want to raise the issue of apparently cosy contracts, the lack of a tendering process and the inability to declare contracts, but who would they turn to? Perhaps they could approach the Government’s own anti-corruption champion, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), although he might not be open to receiving complaints as he is married to Baroness Harding.
We all know that the Minister who has come to defend the Government against such claims is part of the Cabinet Office scene, and we know that her boss, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, is at the centre of many of these dodgy, questionable deals. I expect we will hear the same old lines trotted out: “We were in a crisis and we needed things delivered quickly. The Government will do whatever it takes. The Government have nothing to hide,” and so on. We all know that we were in the middle of a crisis. We were there, too, and no one would ever say that we did not need to respond quickly to plug the gaps left by the Government’s woeful underfunding of the NHS and social care sector, but the public have a right to question the validity of giving hundreds of millions of pounds of public money to shipping companies with no ships, PPE manufacturers who do not make anything, and a pub landlord who happens to know the Health and Social Care Secretary. People deserve to know whether they have got value for money. They need to know whether we can recoup some of the money we have spent on useless PPE.
These are serious matters that just cannot be brushed aside by the Minister. She needs to ask herself some very serious questions before parroting the lines given to her by her boss. Is she happy with the way in which the Government have spent the money of her constituents in Hornchurch and Upminster? Are they happy with it? Emergency demands urgency, but emergency is not an excuse for cronyism.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this important debate. I wish to make a declaration that family members, friends and constituents are employed by or have an interest in companies that carry out work for Government contracts.
On this occasion, I wish to speak about my constituent Samir Jassal, who is also a local councillor in Gravesham. The hon. Lady referred to the company, whose name I cannot remember—pharma something—but there is an absurd narrative that he got more than £100 million-worth of business because of links to the Conservative party. I know him quite well, and it is utterly preposterous to say that because he stood twice in unwinnable parliamentary seats, because he twice managed to get himself a photograph with David Cameron, because he twice managed to get himself a picture with Boris, because he once gave four thousand quid to the Gravesham Conservative Association, and because he is the councillor for Westcourt ward, that somehow buys him calls from the Health Secretary, whose honour is also impugned in this. The idea that the Health Secretary rang him up because he had given four thousand quid and had a few photographs taken, with an, “Oi, mate—want to make a few hundred grand next week on PPE?” is utterly preposterous.
According to Trump, the CIA was scouring China at a time when this equipment was in globally short supply. There was global competition for this stuff. We all remember the hospitals and care homes in our constituencies screaming for this stuff. I remember getting a video from one of my friends, who is a nurse in the local hospital, showing a store cupboard and the sell-by dates of some of the PPE in there, which was a couple of years old—it did not actually matter, apparently. There was this awful tension. It was a ghastly situation. This was a national emergency and a time of huge global competition for the very same boxes of equipment sitting in Chinese warehouses or waiting to come off their production lines.
If we had just relied on the state sector or our existing suppliers, that equipment would have been shipped elsewhere in the world. Entrepreneurs such as Samir Jassal and the civil servants who worked with them are actually heroes, and the BBC, some hon. Members and the so-called Good Law Project should have the humility to accept that.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, in this important debate, brought to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) from the Petitions Committee.
Our constituents expect two things from Government procurement: first, for the Government to be careful with public funds; and secondly, for Ministers to undertake their duties honestly and with integrity. Sadly, those two requirements appear to be severely lacking in our current arrangements. The Government’s approach to contracting has been marred by waste, cronyism and a deep disrespect for our NHS heroes. They spent more than £22 billion—I believe my hon. Friend said it is £37 billion—on the Test and Trace system, which appears to make only a marginal difference, but only £3.50 a week extra on our nurses. They spent £7,000 a day on management consultants while withholding a much-needed pay increase for our NHS heroes. The values are all wrong.
The Government approach has lacked transparency from the start and, as the High Court ruled, they acted unlawfully on transparency and publishing contracts in a timely manner. The Prime Minister brushed off that suggestion, saying that the Government had published a few PPE contracts a fortnight late. Many contracts were not for personal protective equipment, but for management consultants and other services, and many remain unpublished. Some were published as late as 97 days after the recommended deadline.
The Prime Minister also said that the outstanding contracts were
“there on the record for everybody to see.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 638.]
But it recently emerged in a court order that 100 contracts were still waiting to be published, one of which dated as far back as March 2020. The Government must take urgent action now to ramp up transparency rapidly and stop the huge waste to the public purse. They must publish the outstanding contracts and the companies in the VIP fast lane now. It is not good enough that people are able to write to a Minister in the House of Lords they happen to know in order to fast-track their company for a contract.
The emergency procurement powers should be wound down immediately, and money should be clawed back on contracts that have not delivered. If there is money to be clawed back, given that there appears to be largesse in Government, who are spraying money around on some of those contracts, instead of hiding the available money, why not make it available for staff who do not get sick pay and therefore cannot self-isolate, thereby spreading the virus? That would be a very good use of that money.
Recently, explosive emails were revealed about Public First, which had a strong connection with Mr Cummings and another member of staff from No. 10 Downing Street called Lee Cain. It appeared to be getting work to do focus groups. To the mind of my constituents, that is an utter waste of money at a crucial time when we should focus resources on our NHS. The High Court ruled that the Health Secretary acted unlawfully on transparency and publishing contracts on time. Those are damning revelations. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us what the medical regulator has said about the Health Secretary’s pub landlord, who won a lucrative contract after a WhatsApp message exchange but appeared to lack the relevant experience.
We need to do things differently. In the next minute I will conclude my remarks with what I think needs to be done. First, we need to re-examine whether the instinct to immediately contract out is, in fact, the best way to run public services. Surely we should have a properly funded health service to directly provide public services for our health service. Secondly, are our freedom of information requirements and practices sufficient to cope with the requirements on them? Are the private companies that are successfully awarded contracts subject to freedom of information requests? I do not believe that they are. We, as MPs, want to know the information. We want to know whether the money is being spend in a transparent way.
As a Parliament we need to demand that the Government make the UK a world leader in transparency again, which we used to be, by introducing a genuinely independent anti-corruption commissioner, which the hon. Member for Gower mentioned. An independent anti-corruption Minister should not be married to an individual who is in charge of an operational contract. That does not look right; it does not appear to be transparent, and that must be changed as soon as possible, regardless of who the individuals are. It is simply inappropriate for a spouse to purvey the corrupt or not corrupt practices of a Government.
Finally, we need to establish an integrity and ethics commission that will cover a number of different Government functions ranging from the Electoral Commission. I believe from reading the papers over the weekend that the Prime Minister wants to water down any provision to punish MPs who may be doing the wrong thing. That goes against what our constituents actually want. An integrity and ethics commission could lay out the Nolan principles, which appear to be being ignored, with individual MPs, Ministers or companies taking our contracts. We must have the highest standards in public service and public life. I thank you, Ms Fovargue, the Petitions Committee and every single petitioner who is watching this debate, for bringing this issue to our attention.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for leading this debate and, of course, everyone who took the time to sign the petition. The Government’s approach to procurement during the pandemic has been marred by rampant cronyism and huge wasting of taxpayers’ money. They have shown a consistent track record of handing out contracts to their mates and even breaking the law along the way. Although it was apparent that the Government had to procure large volumes of goods and services quickly to meet demand, that is no excuse for the serious levels of cronyism and corruption that are now becoming apparent.
The National Audit Office investigation into Government procurement showed that the Government awarded £18 billion of contracts, using emergency procurement regulations, to buy goods, services and works to support their response to the pandemic. Some £10.5 billion was awarded directly without any competition, and £6.7 billion was awarded directly to pre-approved suppliers, even though they were not necessarily pre-approved for the products that they were selling. Only £0.2 billion was awarded using a competitive process.
That approach to procurement naturally led to issues of quality. The 50 million face masks bought in April last year, for example, could not be used in the NHS because they did not meet its specifications. More than £2 billion-worth of those contracts were awarded to firms with links to the Tories, and Cabinet members personally intervened to help their associates win lucrative contracts.
Just under two weeks ago, the High Court ruled that the Minister for the Cabinet Office broke the law by acting with “apparent bias” when a £560,000 contract was awarded to Public First without the tender going out for competition. Public First was found by the High Court to be a company with close links to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and former No. 10 aide Dominic Cummings.
In February of this year, the Government’s legal department stated that the cost of defending that case reached £600,000. That was more than the original contract was worth in the first place. It is shocking that the Government used taxpayers’ money to cover up their own lawbreaking, while frontline workers were not adequately protected with the high-quality PPE that they needed, our NHS staff could not be afforded a decent pay rise, and the Government are managing to invest only 20p per child per day in their so-called catch-up plan.
I hope that the Minister will tell us the total amount of taxpayers’ money that has been spent by this Government to cover up the fact that they acted unlawfully in awarding that contract to Public First. Will she tell us what the Government are doing to recover the taxpayers’ money that was handed out to Public First?
The National Audit Office investigation into Government procurement also found specific examples of insufficient documentation being produced on key decisions or on how risks, such as perceived or actual conflicts of interest, were identified or managed. In addition, several contracts were awarded retrospectively or have not been published in a timely manner. The lack of adequate documentation meant that the National Audit Office was unable to give assurances that the Government had adequately mitigated the increased risks arising from emergency procurement or applied appropriate commercial practices in all cases.
There is no doubt that that has severely diminished public transparency and public confidence. We can see the public feelings from the number of people who have signed the petition. Does the Minister agree that the use of emergency procurement powers needs to be wound down, and that all contracts awarded using such powers must be published, with an assumption against redactions and in favour of uploading all contract documents? Let us be clear: none of this has happened in isolation. It is a case of the wealthy elite being given priority, to become wealthier from the pandemic. That is wrong on so many levels.
We know that an independent public inquiry will be held in spring 2022, with the exact scope of the review yet to be determined. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s approach to public procurement during the covid-19 pandemic must be explicitly examined as part of the public inquiry into the handling of the crisis? As the 127,000-strong petition states, there must be a public inquiry
“to ascertain whether contracts had been procured fairly and represent value for money for tax payers.”
The public have a right to know if their money was spent wisely and properly, and they have a right to wider scrutiny of the Government’s response to the pandemic.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I want to talk not just about contracts that have been awarded, but about contracts that have not—particularly contracts to UK manufacturers and the UK diagnostics sector. The Prime Minister repeatedly tells us he wants to build back better, to level up, to invest in global Britain and so on. However, with regard to lateral flow devices, the Government have signed an undisclosed contract, for an undisclosed sum of money, which I have been trying to get to the bottom of for some time, for Innova lateral flow test devices.
Back in November 2020, I was passed a copy of the test’s data sheet, of the type that comes with any medical device or product. It clearly states that these tests are unsuitable for asymptomatic subjects. In other words, we would be using them for a purpose for which they are neither designed nor licensed. I raised this with the deputy chief medical officer in a briefing on 17 November 2020, and I was assured that they had gone through validation. I was also promised a copy of the information that supported that validation, but it never arrived.
Later that month, in front of the Select Committee, I asked the Secretary of State about his media appearances in the weekend prior to that where he announced the use of lateral flow devices as being almost 100%—“99.6%”—accurate. I asked him about that because there were growing bodies of evidence and opinions in The British Medical Journal—not some rag that was subject to speculation—that these tests were unsuitable for the purposes for which they were about to be employed. I was seriously concerned because there was a possibility that not only would a false positive be incorrect, but a false negative would be incorrect. In-field data suggested that this could be as low as 50%. In other words, the test result was effectively the flip of a coin. It was no more or no less certain than that.
Over time, I have continued to explore this and have tried to hold the Secretary of State to account on this matter. I would reflect on one comment that was made in The BMJ at that time, which was that the Government’s approach to covid testing was an
“unevaluated, under designed and costly mess”.
The Secretary of State’s response to that was that his
“assessment of that description is that it is wrong.”
Fast forward to June this year, and the Food and Drug Administration of the United States—again, not some fly-by-night outfit—said that the covid test kits used in Britain fall under
“Class 1: A situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”
The example I used with my staff to try and explain to them why I was so interested in this was quite simple. Using these tests as a gatekeeper for someone who then has a false negative to be allowed into a care home to visit a relative, allows that person, who may be asymptomatic and whose viral shedding it would be difficult to know about, to be among the most vulnerable people.
Accompanying that decision was footage, shown on the BBC, of a relative hugging and kissing their elderly parent in the day room of a care home full of other vulnerable people. I know the Government have tried to be as optimistic as possible throughout this pandemic, and in some respects I congratulate them on that, because it is important to lift the mood of the population at a difficult time. However, it is simply unacceptable to say that something provides reassurance when that is simply not the case.
I could go on to give various other examples, but this was no surprise to the Secretary of State or the chief medical officer. These points were raised repeatedly in the Select Committee. I raised them directly with the chief medical officer. I asked about the concerns, and he admitted that he was an expert in the use of lateral flow devices, but—this relates back to the point that I have just made—he also said:
“If what they are used for is to reduce risk, lateral flow tests have a very substantial benefit. If, on the other hand, they are used to increase risk, so that people start doing in a very risky way things they otherwise would not have done”—
such as going to a care home to visit a relative—
“it becomes a lot more complicated.”
In other words, the tests become quite deadly.
I could give lots of examples, but I have hit as many of the targets as I really want to. However, there are serious issues here, because there are UK providers that have been touted—not by the markets, but by Lord Bethell himself—as being in line for contracts and that are now, again, waiting for those contracts to be honoured. The Minister has announced today that those contracts will now be given to another Chinese provider, Orient Gene. There is something wrong. If the Government truly want to level up the country and expand global Britain, how can it be that Chinese providers of tests that the FDA says are deadly are continuing to be offered contracts, while UK providers are going empty-handed? There are a series of serious questions that need to be answered, and they need to be answered by the Government soon.
Why have the public been led to believe that the tests are reliable, when there have been serious doubts about their usefulness since at least November 2020? Why are the tests repackaged in the NHS branding, and what are the legal implications? Is the NHS taking ownership as the manufacturer? Why has the UK continued for a further two months to use tests that are deemed dangerous by the FDA? Why has there been an extension to the exceptional usage agreement, when we know they are deadly? It is absolutely crazy. Why are UK manufacturers of perfectly useful tests being sidelined for worthless tests?
I would also like to know when the contracts for the tests were signed. Were they signed before the Government knew that they were not licensed for the purpose for which they were going to be used? Who was the Minister who authorised that? These are very serious questions, and I would underline a point that was made by an earlier speaker: an anti-corruption tsar needs to be appointed. Someone needs to come in and have a very hard look at the Government’s action on contracting throughout this pandemic—not just at what has been awarded, but at what has not been awarded.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. I thank the petitioners for signing this very important petition, which has led to this extremely important debate.
I will begin by mentioning a few of the Members who have spoken so far, particularly the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). I commend her for a truly shocking start—shocking, in that she laid out for us a litany of what was, at very best, an overly relaxed approach from the UK Government to normal procurement processes. On behalf of the public, she asked where the money has gone, which is really key to the debate. She also asked whether the anti-corruption champion of the UK Government will take up this issue, but perhaps not. Perhaps it will be the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but perhaps not. Perhaps it will be the Health Secretary or the Prime Minister. Trust in these politicians, I am afraid, is severely lacking. I loved the line that the hon. Member for Gower finished with: “Urgency is not an excuse for cronyism,” which is a statement I heartily endorse.
I note the contribution from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway). I gently say to him that national emergency does not disqualify the Government from proper examination of what look to the public like questionable decisions over very large amounts of public money.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) asked some excellent questions, in particular about the accountability of some of the private businesses that the Government have so hastily entered into contracts with. She mentioned the inappropriate connections between key players, as did the hon. Member for Gower, and called for an integrity and accountability executive, in particular in light of the UK Government’s apparent intention to have prosecution powers removed from the Electoral Commission.
Everyone recognises that governing in a pandemic is not the same as governing in calmer times. In such times, decisions need to be made that are well out of the ordinary. No one would argue that a normal procurement process would be appropriate or timely enough. Perhaps a case could be made that stocks of disposable items should have been higher or contracts should have been in place to secure additional stocks at short notice and at standard cost—those are likely to be issues that the inquiries after the pandemic will look at and make recommendations on—but we can still look at what happened, how the emergency aspects were handled and where the money went, because it is important. We should also be certain that the awarding of contracts was fair.
The terms of this petition are important, the action that the petitioners ask of us is equally important, and the responsibility of any elected politician to answer properly to the electorate is paramount. My own queries of the Government have been less than enlightening. Back in early September last year, I asked the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on contracts awarded without tendering. I received no such commitment —perhaps you are not surprised to learn that, Ms McDonagh—but I did receive an assurance that did not reassure me: that it was through our “free press” and an “outspoken House of Commons” that we had
“such an honest and un-corrupt country”.—[Official Report, 3 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 317.]
In March this year, I asked how much was paid out under the contracts in advance of delivery, how much had been clawed back for services or products not delivered and how much the Government were still to pursue in repayments. The Minister replying said that the Government were
“undertaking a stocktake and an audit.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 670.]
I will be pleased if the Minister updates us on the progress of that stocktake and audit.
Back in April, however, a written question of mine asked how many contracts were issued without tendering, what the total value of those contracts was, how many of those contracts required advance payments and how many times the supplier failed to fulfil the contract. I was told that 1,151 contracts, worth an estimated £19 billion, were published by 1 April, the majority of which were let using a direct award. I was told that a number—an unspecified number, but a number—of PPE contracts had advance payments, but that, since different teams within one Department handled different contracts, the information about performance and reclaiming money already laid out was not available and could be gathered only at disproportionate cost. It is interesting to see how costs become disproportionate sometimes, isn’t it? I also got a “disproportionate cost” answer when I asked for the diary of the executive chair of Test and Trace. Perhaps that diary uses a very complicated system.
We have all seen the documentary reportage, in which suppliers of PPE and other equipment spoke about being unable to get through to the Government to offer what they already had, while contracts were being handed out to all and sundry, including chocolate makers and companies that never existed before securing a contract. We heard of the VIP line for people recommended by Ministers. We read the stories of WhatsApp messages with pub landlords. We heard about equipment arriving that was not fit for use, and we heard plenty about shortages causing problems.
We do not need ministerial excuses. We do not need lame explanations or finger-pointing. We just need to know what went on and whether it was all above board, and we need an independent and unbiased review of it. That is why the Government should agree to this very specific inquiry, so that we can see what went on. Furthermore, the Government should be opening up the filing cabinets. Let us see the Cabinet minutes on covid and how decisions were made about securing adequate supplies of PPE, sanitiser, ventilators, drugs, beds for the pop-up hospitals and so on. Let us see the memos and the notes of phone calls made, the emails sent and the directions given to civil servants. Let us see all of that and compare it with what Ministers were told was needed and with what needed to be done to keep people safe and alive.
A disgruntled former employee has recently been dribbling out selected bits of conversations with the Prime Minister and other little snippets. I am sure that reporters have enjoyed covering that, but it is no way to do things. The bitter revenge of a man who proved inadequate does no one any good, so the Government should just do us all a favour: a commitment now to an inquiry into the covid contracts would be good. It should be a full inquiry by an outside source. The Government can make that a judge or an ex-judge, if they want—Lady Hale may well be available. Give her a wide remit and a support team of experts. Ask her to report as early as she can. Give her full access to all documentation and all the resources that she needs to do the job.
When this pandemic passes, it will be important that people can have confidence in their Government again. Scotland will be independent soon and it will not matter so much to us, but for the people of England it will matter a great deal. For once, this Government can do the right thing.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for leading this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Above all, I am thankful to all the people who signed the petition and to those who created it, because it means that, whether it is welcome or not, we must have this debate in the House, albeit on a Monday evening and in a small room. It should be happening on the Floor of the House of Commons, but the Government do not seem too keen to have it there, so we are having it here instead. Nevertheless, I thank all those who took the time to sign the petition, because this debate is not going away.
As my hon. Friend said, over 125,000 people have signed this e-petition, which shows the strength of feeling across the country about this issue. And those people signed it last year; if the petition had stayed open, we would have had a lot more signatures. That is because this situation did not stop when people were signing the petition; it has carried on and is carrying or now. There are questions to be answered.
Quite rightly, the British public do not like a cover-up. However, even the first response to this petition by the Government had to be sent back by the Petitions Committee —I thank the Committee for that—as the Government tried to dodge the question and did not really answer it. They had to resend in their homework; eventually, it was a bit better, but it is still not good enough.
Labour has been calling for months for this independent public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the covid pandemic, and the Government’s contracts must form a part of such an inquiry. That is what the public are asking for in this petition, and that is what we need to see. My hon. Friend eloquently outlined all the many different contracts about which there are questions to answer: contracts for PPE, contracts for free school meals and contracts for other things. We need to have an inquiry into all of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) was right to say that the public want the Government to be careful with money, they want to know how that money is being spent and they want to see the details published. There are key questions about Government appointments and standards of ethics that we want answered. I am sure these questions would be key recommendations of any inquiry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) rightly went through the shocking costs of some of the contracts. They are not shocking in terms of their costs; this money needed to be spent urgently, to save lives. However, there was potential waste behind those contracts. There are also concerns that public confidence has been eroded because of the way that the contracting was carried out.
It is important to have an inquiry, because there are clearly questions to be answered, and lessons need to be learned rapidly. To be honest, I am concerned about leaving all those questions to the public inquiry. The questions about the contracting that is happening now need to be answered now. So a rapid-fire inquiry, which would also be part of the public inquiry, would be the best response to the questions being asked.
This is so important. Today could have been the day that has been termed “freedom day”. Who knows? With a correct track and trace contract, properly administered so that we could have confidence in it, we might not have had to rely only on the vaccine roll-out, which is impressive. Good test and trace could even have enabled us to have completed the opening-up today. That is how important this issue is.
The Government’s reply to the petition referred to the Boardman review, but that is not an independent and unbiased review, and just adds to the lack of transparency. It looks more and more as if the Conservatives are set on glossing over the cronyism in their ranks so that they can carry on as if nothing has happened. The Government have promised a covid inquiry “at the appropriate time”, but the appropriate time to look into these contracts is now. The next pandemic could arrive tomorrow: it is an ever-present threat, and the next one could be bigger and more deadly than covid. The Government cannot kick this inquiry down the road, because a moment of crisis is when our contracting should be better than normal, with higher standards than normal and more reliable than normal, not with more questions and more concerning, “given out to my mates” contracting.
The questions that I, many colleagues here and the public need answers to today are these. How did the urgent scramble to procure resources we needed to get us through the pandemic descend into corruption, waste, cronyism and secrecy? Why is this emergency contracting still going on? What has changed? Is anything better? It did not have to be this way; it should not have to be this way; and it cannot be this way when the next pandemic hits.
In the past 12 months, the Government have ordered £280 million of masks that did not meet the required standards. They have spent over £100 million on gowns without carrying out technical checks, and they could not be used. These were purchased by PestFix, a company that specialises in pest control products and that, by the Government’s own admission, was dormant in 2018 before being referred by the VIP channel. As the Good Law Project uncovered last month, officials at the Department of Health and Social Care were aware that PestFix’s agent may have been bribing officials in China. Most concerning of all, the Government have awarded almost £2 billion in covid contracts to friends and donors of the Conservative party.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) raised those points, and he said that there is nothing to see here, but I think he made a good argument for an inquiry.
Adam Holloway
I have no objection at all to an inquiry. I was just trying to point out how absolutely preposterous it is that one of the key pillars of this whole argument that there has somehow been corruption is that a bloke in Gravesend gives four grand to the Tory party, as well as the other things I listed, and suddenly has the Government giving multi-million-pound contracts.
Fleur Anderson
I say in response to the hon. Member that there is too much here to be answered. It is not just the odd small company here and there; there has been a real pattern of corruption.
Adam Holloway
But this is one of the main planks, and it just does not stack up. Do you really think Matt Hancock is going to give a £103 million contract to somebody because they were once a parliamentary candidate and they edged in in a picture with Boris? It is absurd, and it is one of your main planks.
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members to refer to other hon. Members not as “you”, but by constituency.
Fleur Anderson
The hon. Member has made my case for me. If there is nothing to see here, let us have an inquiry. Members of the public have signed this petition in their thousands because they do not have confidence in these contracts, and they want there to be an inquiry. If everything is above board and all was fine, we will find that out through the inquiry, but it is public concern that has brought us here today. There are questions to be answered, there is a pattern of cronyism that the public are seeing, and that is why an inquiry would be the right response.
It is not good enough for Ministers to say, “We needed these items urgently back in March”—no question there—“so stop complaining about how we did it.” Of course we needed them. Of course systems had to be used to get our NHS staff all the safety equipment they needed then and there, but all checks and balances did not need to go out of the window. Ministers should still check their family connections, and they should still register interests. The best companies should not be overlooked in favour of Tory party donors. These emergency systems should not still be in place so long after they were needed.
Last year, 126,000 people signed this petition, and yet we are still uncovering more issues like those they were concerned about. They are right to feel ignored, and a public inquiry would listen to their concerns. Only a few weeks ago, it emerged that the Home Secretary lobbied the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on behalf of a healthcare firm trying to get a Government contract. She wrote to him expressing disappointment that the Government had not bought face masks from a company that had links to someone she knew. That glaring and flagrant breach of the ministerial code needs to be investigated.
Then, of course, there are the hundreds of millions of pounds handed to Serco to run the national Test and Trace system. Some £37 billion was earmarked, and it is reported that £277 million has been signed by now. Why is there the discrepancy here? What were those contracts for? Where did they go to? Will we get money back for the contracts that were not delivered?
The Local Government Association found last year that local contact tracing systems have a 97.1% success rate at finding close contacts and advising them to self-isolate. That is considerably better than a centralised system, so although rushing to go to the private sector would in many cases have been the right thing to do, was it always the right thing to do? Incidentally, only last week, Serco upgraded its profit forecast by £15 million thanks to its Test and Trace work.
It is not just Opposition MPs making these points. Transparency International has identified 73 contracts worth more than £3.7 billion—equivalent to 20% of the covid-19 contracts signed between February and November 2020—that raised one or more flags for possible corruption. It concluded that there was a systematic bias towards those with connections to the party of Government in Westminster. It found that 72% of the covid-related contracts awarded in the sample period
“were reported after the 30 day legal deadline, £7.4 billion of which was reported over 100 days after the contract award.”
In comparison, it took the Ukrainian Government on average less than a day to publish information on 103,000 covid-19 contracts after they were awarded during the same period.
On that point, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at least owes us a statement to Parliament setting out where the UK has not complied with its legal transparency obligations, how they are being rectified and how these issues will be prevented in the future. When the Minister comes to respond, she will no doubt tell us that the Government and markets faced unprecedented global demand for PPE, and that in a short space of time the Government procured billions of items of PPE. That just does not wash anymore, which is why the public wanted this debate. The months preceding the first lockdown are a sorry tale of complacency and missed opportunities, leading to the scramble for PPE. There should never have been a shortage in the first place.
We need an inquiry to answer questions about what happened and to make strong recommendations about what to put in place in the future. It should assess the performance of companies that went through the emergency contracting procedures, such as Ayanda, Randox and PestFix, which other Members mentioned. It should speak to the companies affected and to the CEO of the UK Fashion and Textile Association, which represents 2,500 companies and first engaged with the Government on 18 March 2020. He said that the domestic procurement operation had been slow to grind into gear and failed to tap into industry expertise. Companies waiting to deliver the much-needed PPE were overlooked.
An inquiry must look into why the Government sidelined companies such as Arco, which had extensive experience of providing health-grade PPE prior to the pandemic. It provided PPE during Ebola, swine flu, avian flu and foot and mouth, but it secured only £14 million-worth of contracts over the past year during the pandemic. It could have fulfilled far more, and it is at a loss as to why it did not get into the VIP lane.
It will no doubt be argued in a moment that the VIP lane was a perfectly reasonable, rational solution to the mass of offers to supply equipment at the start of the pandemic. However, the opposite was true. We have seen evidence presented in recent High Court hearings showing emails in which civil servants raised the alarm that they were drowning in VIP requests from political connections that did not have the correct certification or did not pass due diligence. For us as outsiders, it does not seem that the VIP lane worked. It should not be used in any future emergency contracting and should not be used in a future crisis, but an inquiry would tell us more and give us those recommendations.
As the Good Law Project puts it:
“This is the cost of cronyism—good administration suffers, efficient buying of PPE suffers.”
I, Members here, the British public and the petitioners want answers from the Minister on four key questions. Will there be a rapid-fire inquiry and will the covid contracts be part of the major covid inquiry? Secondly, what is her Department doing to claw back the cash from companies that provided the Government with millions of items of unsafe, unusable PPE at a time of unprecedented national crisis? What options do the Government have in the contracts—we cannot see them—in terms of clawback? It is important that we know.
Thirdly, will the Government finally, as the Opposition have been demanding for months, deliver full transparency on the VIP lane, including publishing the names of the companies awarded the contracts via the channel and who made referrals to it? Were there any conflicts of interest to be identified and addressed? It is important to know, otherwise the information will just keep dripping out bit by bit and we will find out partially what is going on. If there is nothing to see here, open up the light and let us know.
Finally, will the Minister commit her Department to auditing in detail all the contracts that have raised red flags and to publishing the outcomes of the audit? Given that her Department is formally responsible for improving transparency and ensuring better procurement across Government, we expect the Cabinet Office to take responsibility for what happened, to learn the lessons so that this never happens again, and to ensure that, if there is a future crisis, we have the best contracting facilities for the best companies to deliver what we need immediately. That is what the British public want to know.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this evening’s e-petition debate for their valuable contributions. I also thank the petitioners for initiating it. The public are absolutely right to demand that we spend money with care when we procure vital goods, services and works; I agree with the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and others on that. I have always set out to be open about the challenges that the Government had to navigate at the height of the pandemic in procuring goods and services in the most urgent of situations. We were required to move at great speed and in an incredibly complex operating environment.
I was on maternity leave in the first half of 2020 as covid took hold, so I began my ministerial role only this time last year. My time in office in relation to procurement, therefore, has been spent not only going back to understand what happened during the early stages of the pandemic, particularly in relation to PPE, but on how we can improve our future response to urgent challenges. I want to assure hon. Members that a huge amount of work is either under way or already completed, which should reassure members of the public who would like an inquiry. I agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) that we do not want to wait to learn lessons.
The work includes an external, independent and unbiased review by the National Audit Office, two internal Cabinet Office reviews that have now been published, the commitment to a public inquiry into covid that starts next spring, and—of particular interest—a new procurement Bill that my ministerial colleague Lord Agnew and I are drafting, which will provide commercial teams with many more extensive options in a crisis between direct award, which raises understandable transparency concerns, and full-fat procurement, which takes far too long to turn around. The fastest turnaround under the dynamic purchasing system is six to eight weeks to contract award, and on an accelerated basis the very quickest possible process would be two weeks. But that would assume that all bid documentation was in place at the start, so it can be seen that in urgent situations this presents a real challenge.
On that first aspect of my work, I stood in Westminster Hall last year and shared a candid account of my findings for the House, particularly in relation to the procurement of PPE, a subject raised this evening by the hon. Members for Gower, for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). Those matters have been scrutinised by this House in many other forums. I will go over some of that context again because it is incredibly important to understand the actual challenges that were faced. I am afraid I cannot address all of the other items raised, particularly in relation to some of the education contracts, because I have not personally investigated those, but, as I described at that time, from conversations with officials, the Government had to work at pace in a very competitive international market to secure unprecedented volumes of essential supplies in order to protect frontline workers. That required a colossal upscaling effort.
Some 450 people from across Government were moved into the Department of Health and Social Care to become a stand-up virtual team to assist with securing PPE. That team is normally only 21 people strong. In many ways, this was a really impressive feat, with a hell of a lot of people who did not know each other working remotely on a range of different IT systems. We all assume that the Government are one entity, but Departments work in very different ways, often with different IT systems. It can be difficult to move people around the system and to make those systems compatible with each other. They were dealing with a product they were not familiar with in a very highly pressured market. That led to lags in contract publication, as paperwork has been very tricky to join up across systems. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock).
Facing exceptional levels of global demand, the usual vendors in China who service the NHS’s central procurement function very quickly ran out of supply, and the world descended on a few factories in that country to bid for available items. In that market context, the Government needed to procure with extreme urgency, often through direct award of contracts, or risk missing out on vital supplies. I pay tribute to officials for what they achieved, because it was quite remarkable in the circumstances. The Government never ripped up procurement rules. Regulation 32(2)(c) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which predates the pandemic, explicitly allows for emergency procedures, including direct award. In a situation of genuine crisis and extreme urgency where offers had to be accepted or rejected in a matter of hours or days, it simply was not viable to run the usual procurement timescales, even by taking advantage of accelerated processes.
There was concern about the level of PPE that might be required to deal with covid. The Prime Minister put out a call to action, as many Members will recall. With huge commitment and energy, the British public and business responded. But that also meant that, in very short order, commercial teams were dealing with more than 15,000 offers of help. Frankly, leads were coming in much faster than they could be processed. When they were rejected, or if they were delayed, people started chasing through their MPs. To manage that influx of offers, a separate mailbox was set up to handle this area of work, and to sift credible offers.
The most important thing to note is that all PPE offers, no matter from where they came, went through the same eight-stage checks. The PPE team compared prices to those obtained in the previous two weeks, to benchmark the competitiveness of those offers. Separate approval and additional justification were required for any offers that were not within 25% of an average considered for possible approval. It is also important to note that of the 493 offers that came through that priority mailbox, I understand that only 47 were taken forward—in other words, 90% were rejected. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) highlighted the absurdity of some of the claims of impropriety being made.
Adam Holloway
On Samir Jassal, the supposedly important pillar of corruption, I remember running into him and him telling me that he had offered some PPE, when we were screaming for it. I think he had spent over a month being triaged to see whether it was suitable stuff. This is really preposterous.
Julia Lopez
It is interesting to know that. The hon. Member for Gower mentioned the company Arco, and I appreciate her for raising that. It was raised by the MP for Arco’s constituency, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), in a Westminster Hall debate to which I referred earlier. If the hon. Member for Gower and I swapped seats, I wonder whether I would be suggesting that it was improper to put that forward. People were in very difficult circumstances; if she had been told that there was a company that could support the national effort, would she not have put it forward for review? We have to ask ourselves that question.
The focus on those early procurement challenges secured some tremendous successes under pressure. We have established one of the largest and most diversified vaccine portfolios in the world. We have ordered 32 billion items of PPE and provided more than 15,000 ventilators to the NHS. It is important that we do not obscure those achievements with some of the understandable concerns that have been raised about transparency. None of us wants to sit here answering questions about cronyism. The challenges I cited about the recording-keeping across Departments are real ones that we are trying very hard to address. I understand why people ask questions; I have asked many of them myself, and I have been reassured by the answers that I have received from officials.
Deidre Brock
The Minister at the time did not answer my questions about record-keeping between Departments and trying to establish costs that were being clawed back from contracts that had not worked out. Is the Minister suggesting that that is being worked on and that we will be able to ask those questions in future and get some understanding of where the Government have pursued costs that have been inappropriately awarded to companies that have not come up with the goods?
Julia Lopez
I believe there are cases where that is happening. I would have to go away and double-check, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady.
We have always made it clear that there would be opportunities to look back and analyse, and to address some of the shortcomings that I have listed on all aspects of the pandemic. As hon. Members will know, the Prime Minister has confirmed that an inquiry will be established on a statutory basis, with full formal powers. That will begin work in spring 2021. As I said earlier, however, procurement during the pandemic has already been extensively reviewed, and Members will be familiar with the NAO report published in November, which I spoke about previously.
Neale Hanvey
I would like to ask for the Minister’s view on whether there is a perceived or actual impropriety in the way some of the contracts have been handled. I will read you the information that has just come out from the Good Law Project:
“Uniserve Limited is a logistics firm controlled by Iain Liddell. Prior to the pandemic, the firm had no experience in supplying PPE, yet the firm landed a staggering £300m+ in PPE contracts from the DHSC and an eye-watering £572m deal to provide freight services for the supply of PPE. The company shares the same address as Cabinet Minister Julia Lopez MP and is based in her constituency.”
Does that not give you a sense that there might be something in this? The whole issue around conflict of interest is not whether it is real, but whether a member of the public might assume that there is a concern.
Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be shorter and that “you” refers to the Chair.
Julia Lopez
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s raising that contract, because it has been a challenge to me as a Minister. As I said earlier, I began this role only in June 2020. I had not been allocated a private office, and I had not been given a portfolio. Then I found myself in a procurement role, and questions are being asked about the company from which I rent a constituency office. As I say, I was not actually in post at the time that that was being decided. The challenge is that questions have been raised that I cannot fully address, because I do not have all the information. I was not party to the contract, so it is a considerable challenge. It is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham also raised.
Julia Lopez
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern about perception, but it should actually be about fact. I am happy to address any concerns that he has. I find it extremely challenging to have people raising questions about my integrity in this space, when I do not feel that I have done anything improper. I am happy to get back to him on any questions that he might have, which I have also tried to address in other forums.
We have made it clear that there are opportunities to come back, analyse the situation and conduct reviews. Government procurement during the pandemic has already been extensively looked into by the National Audit Office. The report recognises that the Government needed to act with extreme urgency. The NAO found no irregularities and potential conflicts of interest involving Ministers in the awarding of contracts. The report underlined the importance of transparency in the Government’s procurement activity.
The Government take such matters extremely seriously, and we remain committed to continually improve our processes. To that end, as I mentioned earlier, we have had two independent expert reviews carried out by Nigel Boardman. They were initially internal reviews, but we have published them fully. In the first, he focused on a small number of contracts in the Government Communication Service and made 28 recommendations, 24 of which have already been implemented. The remaining four will be met by the end of the calendar year.
I have been tracking progress on this issue, including the publication of contracts, very closely. Better training of contract managers and commercial and communications staff has begun and there is now a requirement, at the point when a contract recommendation is made, that senior civil servants, special advisers and Ministers declare any interest that is either real or apparent. In his second, wider review, Mr Boardman has identified 28 further recommendations for improvements to procurement processes across Government. Progress is under way to begin the implementation of those, and a full update of progress will be provided to the Public Accounts Committee by July 2021. We are very grateful to Mr Boardman for his ongoing work. That review sits alongside a wider programme of work to reform public procurement, which I am leading.
In December, the Cabinet Office published our Green Paper on this issue, which sets out radical reform to our procurement regulations that will drive much better value for money for the taxpayer. The proposals, which have long been in development, address several areas highlighted in the NAO report, especially mandatory transparency requirements that would ensure that processes and decisions can be monitored by anybody who wishes to do so. The proposals aim to simplify complicated processes, reduce bureaucracy and create a fair, open and competitive system. They will strengthen transparency through the commercial life cycle, from planning and procurement to contract award, performance and completion. We also intend to clarify the rules on procuring in times of extreme urgency or crisis, learning from the difficult experience of this pandemic. The Green Paper consultations resulted in more than 600 responses, which are now being analysed in detail.
It is already Government policy to adopt and encourage greater transparency in commercial activity. Central Government buyers must publish all qualifying tender documents and contracts with a contract value of more than £10,000 on Contracts Finder, but we recognise and regret, as I have expressed already, that there have been delays to publishing some contracts, as raised by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. Teams continue to work on publishing all contracts as soon as possible.
Since the High Court’s judgment in relation to the DHSC’s failure to publish some contracts, it has made significant progress. It has now published all known contract award notices and the contract documents for all historical covid-related contracts. As the permanent secretary for the Cabinet Office confirmed to the Public Accounts Committee earlier this month, all Cabinet Office contracts that related to the regulation 32 procedure on direct awards have been published.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) raised very important points about the onshoring of critical manufacturing capability. Project Defend in the Department for International Trade has done a lot of work in that area. Some of the testing specifics I will need to take away and raise with my ministerial colleagues.
I would like to address some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow, who discussed the recent High Court judgment in relation to the public contract awarded by the Cabinet Office to Public First. I looked back in my role, to better understand the context in which that was contracted, because I received some early questions, when I was first in my ministerial role, that I personally wanted to investigate as well, and I think it might be helpful if I set out a little more of the context.
Back in March, there was no vaccine, no test and trace, and very little knowledge of how best to manage this novel disease. Strong messaging of the kind that could alter behaviours was, at the outset of the pandemic, one of the few tools that we had in our arsenal in the battle against transmission. It followed that the Government Communication Service needed rapidly to assess which messages would have the greatest impact. We needed to turn campaigns around in lightning-quick time, and teams had to be surged to deal with the unprecedented demand for effective comms material. In dealing with such an unforeseen set of circumstances, few officials knew which messages would be sufficiently hard hitting to influence and, most importantly, to change public behaviour.
It was in that context that rapid decisions were made on comms contracts, including the one that was challenged in court. That was for Public First, a research and policy company. It was taken on, alongside BritainThinks, as one of two companies in the market deemed to have the scale, expertise and experience to provide focus-group testing in March. They were both rapidly diverted from existing work to take a snapshot of public reaction. That allowed us in government to test things such as the contain strategy, the early “Stop The Spread” campaign and the “Stay Home” message, which was deemed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green in earlier comments to be a waste of money.
A legal challenge was brought against that contract, on three grounds: urgent procurement without competition; the proportionality of its award for six months; and inclusion of non-urgent work. We did not use money, as was suggested by other hon. Members, to cover up, but actually to find out what had happened, so that we could respond to that legal challenge. The judgment found in favour of the Government on two grounds: first, we were entitled to rely on the emergency procurement regulations because of extreme urgency; and, secondly, the terms of the contract, including length, were proportionate in the circumstances. The court ruled that the Government were entitled to award the contract on grounds of extreme urgency, in response to an unprecedented global pandemic. It recognised the very complex circumstances that we were operating in. It also recognised that a failure to provide effective comms would have put public health at risk.
On the one remaining ground of “apparent bias”, the judgment makes it clear that the decision to award the contract was not due to any personal or professional connections, although consideration should have been given to other research agencies, and the process followed should have been more adequately demonstrated when it came to the objective criteria used to select the supplier. The judgment none the less makes it clear that there was no suggestion of actual bias.
We have done a lot of work to address some of the procedural issues that were raised by this case and which I have mentioned, because I had my own concerns about it. Our implementation of the Boardman recommendations, which I have already discussed, has addressed several areas raised in the judgment. I agree with the hon. Member for Jarrow about winding down the use of regulation 32 in comms, and I have done a lot of work in this area.
Ms Fovargue, I apologise for the length at which I have responded to some of the issues raised. These are important issues and ones that I personally want to ensure that the Government are addressing proactively. I am very keen that we also provide greater context for some of the criticisms and challenges brought. It is absolutely fair that the public would have questions on this, and I want to try to address some of those. I am very grateful for the valuable points raised by hon. Members in the course of this debate, but I want to assure people that the Government are taking decisive action to improve transparency around procurement, alongside a full inquiry into the covid pandemic next year.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank all my colleagues for their contributions and the Minister for her response. The sheer number of examples of deals that have been raised go some way to explaining the depth—
Tonia Antoniazzi
I will take it from the top. I thank all my colleagues for their contributions and the Minister for her response. The sheer number of examples of deals that have been raised go some way to explaining the depth of the issues that worry many of my constituents and, obviously, the constituents of many colleagues.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) made a doughty defence of his constituent, who I am sure is very grateful for it. Unfortunately, if someone benefits from public contracts that are granted without a robust tendering process, and they have a photo gallery containing pictures of the Prime Minister and former Prime Minister, they have to expect people to examine their contract.
Adam Holloway
By that narrative, civil servants must have been leant on by Ministers to give contracts to Samir Jassal. Does the hon. Lady think that those civil servants have also been caught up in this web of corruption, all for £4,000 and a few photographs?
Tonia Antoniazzi
The hon. Gentleman makes his point, and we might think to ourselves, yes, perhaps. However, it happens once, twice, then three times—it is not just the odd case. He talks about £4,000 not being a large sum of money compared with what he made. The Government have to be transparent and say, “Okay. We’ll take it on the chin. Let’s have an inquiry and look at it properly.” That is what the people who signed the petition want.
As predicted, we heard from the Minister a lot of excuses that we were expecting about the emergency. We know that it did not have to be that way, and I want to shine a light on it. According to the Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University, the costs of PPE and Test and Trace in Wales were around half of that spent in England. We know why that is: the Welsh Labour Government did not divvy up contracts with their mates; they gave them to local authorities and those with public health expertise who were responsible for the test-and-trace system. What happened in Wales was transparent, and I am proud that a Welsh Labour Government delivered that. They did not have call handlers sitting around with nothing to do despite the contracts for them costing hundreds of millions of pounds.
A failing track-and-trace system, unusable PPE, and the millions spent on communications will undoubtedly come out in an inquiry. The SNP spokesperson, the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) uttered one of my favourite phrases that the Government use when they do not want us to find out the true scale of an issue: “the disproportionate cost”. What is disproportionate is spending huge amounts of money on equipment that cannot be used. What is also disproportionate are the deaths of 130,000 people who have left behind loved ones and who will never see the answers that they truly deserve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) raised an important question that the Minister should have addressed: how much money have the Government spent on defending themselves in court on the unlawful decisions that have been made? How much, Minister? It is important that we know. Transparency is important, and we have not seen it with this Government. Nurses are offered very little in pay rises, but entrepreneurs who have made a lot of money are seen as heroes. That is not right—it does not sit well with us—and many other people believe that, too.
Adam Holloway
I absolutely think that nurses and everybody are heroes, but at a time of global emergency, entrepreneurs were heroes because the public sector and the usual suppliers were not getting that equipment, but the entrepreneurs were.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I believe that if we had planned for this better, we might not have had to been in this situation.
I will finish with the fact that 128,000 people have lost their lives. This has been mishandled and there must be an inquiry. I send my love to all those who have lost someone during covid-19. It has been a terrible and horrific time. We need that transparency—it has got to be done—and we will continue to fight for the truth for everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 328408, relating to Government contracts during the covid-19 outbreak.
Written Statements
Myanmar
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The UK condemns the coup in Myanmar in the strongest possible terms and we continue to stand with the people of Myanmar as they face increased levels of intimidation, violence, suppression, and arbitrary detention from the military regime.
The UK has been at the forefront of the international response, most recently securing a statement on Myanmar in the G7 Leader’s communiqué on 13 June. We also secured a G7 commitment to prevent flow of arms to Myanmar, a commitment which was echoed in the UN General Assembly resolution of 18 June.
Today we are announcing further measures to target the military and its financial interests.
Sanctions
The UK has worked in close collaboration with partners to implement effective and targeted sanctions. On 29 April we laid new Myanmar (Sanctions) Regulations 2021, to give us broader powers to target the Myanmar military and its business interests.
Today, the UK is announcing its sixth tranche of sanctions since the coup and the second under our new regulations. New designations will target Myanmar Timber Enterprise (MTE) and Myanmar Pearl Enterprise (MPE), two state-owned entities in Myanmar’s extractive sector, which generate millions of pounds in revenue for the junta. We are also designating the State Administration Council (SAC), the junta’s governing body, to send a clear message to the regime that we oppose the coup and associated human rights violations.
These designations build on the UK’s continued efforts to target the military’s economic infrastructure and revenue streams used to finance brutal human rights violations and repression of the civilian population. On 17 May we announced the designation of Myanmar Gems Enterprise under our new regulations. We have also listed Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited and Myanmar Economic Corporation, two military conglomerates under our Global Human Rights regime.
Trade review
Since February we have conducted an extensive series of engagements with UK businesses and trade bodies conducting business within Myanmar, and have undertaken due diligence on the operations of the Department for International Trade (DIT) and our partners in the country.
We will retain our suspension on trade promotion and are reiterating that UK businesses should not enter into relationships that benefit the military and must remain compliant with the UK sanctions regime. Further, we expect British businesses to adhere to and work with suppliers who comply with standards of responsible business conduct, including respecting human rights.
Through this review we have determined that no sector can be classified as completely free from military associations and that some, such as the extractive industries, have a particularly high level of association. Sectors in which DIT has historically offered trade support do not fall into this category of high-level exposure.
Equally, we recognise that the complete withdrawal of all international businesses from Myanmar would deepen the collapse of the economy, risk increasing regional instability, and above all negatively impact the most vulnerable in society.
The overseas business risk guidance, published today, provides further clarity on issues raised by businesses throughout the trade review process, recognising the complex and unique challenges organisations face in these circumstances. In particular, we have made it clear that UK businesses procuring natural resources from Myanmar must do enhanced due diligence on their supply chain. DIT and embassy staff in Yangon remain available to assist UK businesses in remaining compliant with their obligations.
[HCWS106]
Progress on Large Civil Aircraft Disputes
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
On Thursday 17 June I struck a historic deal with the US on the Airbus-Boeing disputes in a major win for both the aerospace sector and for industries such as Scotch whisky.
After talks with US Trade Representative Katherine Tai, both sides have agreed to suspend retaliatory tariffs for five years and co-operate more closely on tackling unfair trade practices by non-market economies.
These 17-year disputes, the longest-running in the history of the World Trade Organisation, have seen damaging retaliatory tariffs levied on products on both sides of the Atlantic due to disagreements over support for large civil aircraft.
The disagreement has hit industries such as cashmere, machinery and single malt Scotch whisky that employ tens of thousands of people across the UK. The Scotch Whisky Association estimates the tariffs have cost the sector hundreds of millions of pounds in lost revenue.
The UK, which was involved as a member of the EU, took the decision to deescalate these disputes by unilaterally suspending retaliatory tariffs on the US at the start of this year, which encouraged the US to agree to a four-month suspension of tariffs while both sides negotiated a longer-term arrangement.
The UK and US will now work together to put the agreement into practice and strengthen co-operation in the large civil aircraft sector.
This deal marks our joint intention for the UK and US to:
Not impose countermeasures for five years.
Establish a working group on large civil aircraft that is led by the respective Minister responsible for trade.
Provide financing to a large civil aircraft producer for the production or development of large civil aircraft on market terms.
Provide research and development funding for large civil aircraft: through an open and transparent process; making the results widely available; and not providing research and development funding, or other support, to producers of large civil aircraft in a way that would cause negative effects to the other side.
Collaborate on tackling non-market practices of third countries that may impact on their large civil aircraft industries.
[HCWS104]
Northern Ireland: New Decade, New Approach Agreement
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
The Government are committed to the delivery of the New Decade, New Approach agreement in full. It was the basis upon which the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement institutions were restored. Full implementation of New Decade, New Approach remains important to the ongoing stability of those institutions. Recognising Northern Ireland’s rich diversity of identities and languages, it is essential that the balanced cultural package the parties agreed to is implemented in full.
If the Executive have not progressed the legislation for the identity, language and culture package in the New Decade, New Approach agreement by the end of September, the UK Government will take the legislation through the UK Parliament. The New Decade, New Approach agreement was endorsed by the UK Parliament, and we will introduce the legislation that delivers on these commitments in October 2021, if necessary. This will provide for the creation of an Office for Identity and Cultural Expression, an Ulster Scots Commissioner, and an Irish language Commissioner.
[HCWS105]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, which we are not expecting, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
I will call Members debating the Dormant Assets Bill to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group of amendments, I invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not Content”, an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content”, a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Dormant Assets Bill [HL]
Monday 21st June 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Dormant Assets Act 2022 View all Dormant Assets Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (21 Jun 2021)
Baroness Barran
“(3A) In subsection (3)(a) “amount owing” includes an amount available to be paid as benefits under a personal pension scheme (see section 6(1)(c) and (3)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that the overview of the dormant assets scheme in Clause 1 reflects Clause 6, which covers amounts available to be paid as pension benefits even though the owner has not made an election as to how the benefits are to be received.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, on 14 June I tabled minor and technical amendments to the Bill, which are needed to ensure that it works properly. These included changes for clarity and consistency, and updates to references and consequential amendments. I set these amendments out in my letter to your Lordships on the same day.
The changes, for clarity, can be grouped into three categories. The first group includes Amendments 1, 2, 3, 5, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 42 and 46. These amendments clarify that amounts owing or payable to a person include those which are not immediately owing or payable until some action is taken. The second group includes Amendments 16 to 20, as well as Amendments 75 and 77. These amendments clarify that orphan moneys would arise in the context of a sub-fund of an umbrella structure. This is because an umbrella structure is effectively a shell structure, and it is the sub-fund of it that would be authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act. The third group includes Amendments 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 25, 26, 27, 33, 35, 36 and 44. These amendments clarify that lifetime ISA provisions apply in the context of access restrictions and to client moneys; in other words, restrictions on assets held within lifetime ISAs apply when their transfer to the Reclaim Fund Ltd would trigger a withdrawal charge payable to HMRC. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to crave the indulgence of the Grand Committee in trying to hang on to my fast-disappearing status as a new, inexperienced Member: I wanted to provide an opportunity for a debate on Clause 1, on the overview of the scheme, and I was going to do that by stand part or by putting down an amendment—but I got the timetable wrong and I failed to do so. However, other people have come to my aid, in that there will be sufficient opportunities later in the Bill’s progress to raise the issues that I would have raised here had I got my act together.
I will mention the main issues that I have in mind. Of course, I mentioned them at Second Reading, but the ability to repeat points seems to be one of the great assets of this process that we go through. The first issue that I will come back to at an appropriate time is the whole structure that leads to this situation. We can have a lot of discussion about the process of the dormant assets scheme, but we need to address the question of why dormant assets appear in the first place. It would be wrong to have a full debate on the scheme without at least reflecting, to some extent, on that issue.
In the government consultation and in preceding debates that led to the Bill there has been a lot of discussion by various people about what the financial institutions are doing to make sure that this issue does not arise. In general terms, there has been a lot of discussion of that issue—well, perhaps not a lot—but I am not sure that it really gets anywhere. Everyone expresses intentions, but how detailed the planning is to avoid it happening is a separate issue.
However, I think there is a stage before that. Why do we have a structure that leads to this sort of end result? The fact that this can happen is something that bears investigation—not just because it has happened but what we can do about it—as does the extent to which the financial institutions seem, in one way or another, to try to shift the blame to individuals. There are questions about what we can we do so that it does not happen in the first place, and I will come back to that at a later stage, possibly this afternoon—and I will try not to repeat myself too much.
The other issue is additionality. There has not been nearly enough discussion of what exactly is meant by additionality; there is no clear structure as to how it is defined. I will take the opportunity at a later stage to raise and discuss that issue as well. So I am really just putting these issues on the table and saying that, at the appropriate time, I will raise them at a later stage of the process.
Since I am here and speaking, I will ask something. The Bill was published effectively only a few days ago, yet we end up with this extensive raft of minor technical amendments, which makes the job of understanding what the Bill is doing extremely difficult—twice or three times as difficult. The grid that we have been supplied with for today’s session is extremely useful, but getting it only an hour before the meeting reduces its value. If I had been quick, I would have ticked off which amendments fall into which of the groups that the Minister has identified. It would have been helpful if we had had it earlier and the different groups had been identified on that list. Perhaps we could have that in arrears, as it were.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief. As the Minister has said, these are highly technical amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I am frustrated by so many amendments of a highly technical nature and confess that I have been unable to spend the time to get on top of the impact of those changes. I am therefore wholly reliant on the Government’s definition of them. Even my noble friend Lady Bowles was floored by this number coming at this point. I hope for assurance from the Minister that we are done with these technical changes. This truly is an unusual number for a Bill that everyone has been aware is coming for some time. On additionality, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to, and which I agree is exceedingly important, I have an amendment tabled for Wednesday which tackles that issue. I hope that he will have some input.
I wish to talk about the various amendments to Clause 3 relating to lifetime ISAs, which, in effect, can go into the scheme only if their transfer to a reclaim fund does not trigger a charge payable to HMRC. I am slightly taken aback. HMRC would not be getting its tax payments until the point of reclaim under normal circumstances, so by allowing the assets to go into the dormant assets scheme it loses nothing, not even the timing of the payment of tax charges, because without the reclaim there would be no tax due, as far as I can tell. That strikes me as extraordinary. Why on earth can these assets not be put into the dormant assets scheme? The tax relationship would probably need amending but that is surely not beyond HMRC’s scope. Surely we could ensure that the taxable event happened only at the point of reclaim, as it does right now, meaning there was a bigger pool available for very good causes. Can the Minister give us an idea of what kind of money we are talking about? How much is being denied to the fund because of this constraint that an event which is taxable under today’s legislation is not being amended to make it clear that it is taxable on reclaim, not on transfer to the fund?
I am getting a bit fed up with HMRC. Time and again we get its very narrow focus on tax revenue generation and very little interest in some of the consequences and external impacts of its actions. We have seen it on things such as the loan change, although this is an entirely different issue. Surely it has some responsibility to ensure that the dormant asset programme is as effective and generous as it can possibly be, and therefore making the effort to sit down and draft the various clauses that would in no way deteriorate its current or its proposed tax position, but would allow those assets to be transferred, is a reasonable expectation. I simply do not understand it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Lord Bassam of Brighton? I think he may have muted his equipment. Can he unmute?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I apologise. I apologise doubly for being late and for failing to unmute.
I missed the Minister’s explanation as she introduced this group, but a few points occur to me. There are some 20-plus issues tied up in these technical amendments and clarifications. That is a lot and, while I am very grateful for the text explaining them, there are some fairly substantial issues here. My attention was drawn to government Amendment 17, which applies a new clause in the case of a wound-up unit trust scheme or a terminated sub-fund of an umbrella unit trust scheme. It sounds awfully complex, actually; it may well be technical, but I do not fully understand exactly what lies behind the wording.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords for their interventions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, I still feel like a newbie here, so I hope on that basis that we will both be given a little leeway.
I think that the central point of all of your Lordships’ comments was about the number of technical amendments, and a request for greater clarification—particularly, in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in relation to lifetime ISAs. I will say three things in that regard. The first, as I said in my letter of 14 June, is that in no way do these amendments change the policy intent of the Bill. In some ways this Bill is not complicated, but in other ways it cuts across a number of policy areas, and that is apparent in the number of government amendments.
The second point on which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked for reassurance was that we would not be having another slew of government amendments on Report. I cannot that there will not be any more: I think there may be a very small number—but it will be a very small number. Thirdly, I undertake to write to your Lordships between now and Report and address in a bit more detail the impact of these amendments.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that the description of pension assets in Clause 1(5)(c) includes the right to elect how to receive pension benefits.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove words in the description of client money assets in Clause 1(5)(e) that are unnecessary in the light of the government amendment at page 2, line 45 and consequential changes proposed to be made by the government amendments to Clause 12.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“(5A) Additional assets may be added to the scheme using powers under section 19, including where this is recommended by a report laid under section (Requirement to review the operation of the dormant assets scheme).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that the list of assets in Clause 1(5) may not be exhaustive, given the existence of the Clause 19 power and the Government’s commitment to keep included asset classes under review.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this amendment is grouped with others that will have a similar effect, which is to secure reports on the operation of the dormant assets scheme. I think that we are all fishing in the same pool here. We all want the same thing and it is always nice to be able to agree with colleagues across the piece on something such as this.
We need periodic reviews. My amendment seeks to have the first periodic review after two years and subsequent reviews every five years thereafter, and I think that there is a degree of consensus that that is desirable. Why do we want to do that? Well, clearly, it makes sense; we need to know what other dormant assets can be released into the fund and how they are consulted on when they are brought forward. We also need to ensure that mechanisms work properly and that any new additions are sufficiently worked out. That is the purpose behind the amendment.
We also need to know why other fund that are dormant are not being released—in particular, I guess, some of the pension funds. I know that concern was expressed about that at Second Reading, because many of us see dormant pension funds as having a lot of potential. I know that the Government said that the dashboard was not yet ready or bedded in, but we could use periodic reviews to ensure that we are regularly updated on this.
So, very simply, that is my introduction to this amendment. I am sure that there will be a degree of consensus in the Committee on this issue, and I hope that the Minister can be positive about it and that, between now and Report, between us we can fashion amendments to the Bill that give expression to that consensus and that the Government can be happy with as well. I am more than happy to talk to other colleagues about this, so that we get it right, because ensuring that we have regular and periodic reviews is important, as it will build up trust in the legislation and across the sector that will benefit from this. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I really do not have anything extra to add to my noble friend Lord Bassam’s comments. The proposed clause is about a review of the functionality of the scheme, so it does not really get to the issues that I referred to earlier, so I think that I will leave it there. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I shall address Amendment 62. Like other amendments in this group, especially those of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the joint amendment of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Kramer, Amendment 62 provides for a general review of the dormant assets scheme. Some of the other amendments are framed in rather narrower terms—for example, a review of whether further assets should be added—but I am looking at the issue of a general review in Amendment 62, as do the other amendments that I have referred to.
As a matter of principle and policy, the desirability of a review has already been recognised and provided for in Section 14 of the 2008 Act. Section 14(1)(a) provided:
“The Treasury shall carry out a review of … the operation of this Part”.
Section 14 is necessarily limited to the assets specified in the 2008 Act; it does not extend to any additional dormant assets subsequently added to the scheme under the Bill. But I would suggest that, by parity of reason and policy, there should be a provision in the Bill for a review of the scheme as enlarged by the Bill—or indeed if there are any further assets in the future to be transferred.
Now, I confess that I have made a mistake—a technical mistake, I suppose it could be called—in my amendment, in that the review under Section 14 of the 2008 Act was to be completed
“within three years from the date when a reclaim fund is first authorised.”
I have not seen that review, but I assume that it was duly conducted. Technically, therefore, I suppose, the section is spent. That is, presumably, why it is not repealed.
It would be possible, and quite easy, to extend Section 14 of the 2008 Act to Part 1, which is what I suggest by my amendment, just by extending the date for completion of the review specified in Section 14. I failed to deal with that in my proposed amendment but, having considered the other proposed amendments in this group, I agree that it would be better for there to be an initial review, as there was in Section 14, and then periodic reviews.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, said, there is minimal disagreement between people about what the time period should be. Some have suggested that there should be a general review within two years or three years and then periodic reviews thereafter every five years or three years. My alteration is minimalist because Section 14 provided for only one review, not periodic reviews, so that, if we were to extend the date for the review, as I said would be possible, there would be only one review. It seems sensible that there should be periodic reviews, whatever the period is, and I do not feel it is necessary for me today to specify whether I think it should be three, four or five years.
There is a difference between all the amendments proposed in this group about what is specially to be included in any review. The amendments I have mentioned provide for a general review and then the provisions go on to say, “bearing mind specifically x, y and z”. Section 14 of the 2008 Act is rather narrow, but it covers the identification of transferor banks and building societies.
Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would determine whether additional assets can be covered by the scheme. I suggest, with respect, that that is too narrow. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, specifically addresses that purpose and the extent to which new dormant assets since the last review have contributed to meeting the underlying policy objectives. That is wider than Section 14 and is quite a wide objective. The amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Kramer, addresses wider issues and has a structure similar to Section 14 of the 2008 Act.
I suppose this is in a sense taking up a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. My amendment is directed in terms of mentioning certain matters that must be specifically included in the general review. It is looking at identifying where these various assets have come from, where they have gone to and what has happened to them. We need to understand that in order to see why there are dormant assets. It is quite an important process to go through to identify how many there are and what proportion of them have come from, for example, banks, pension funds, ISAs or whatever it may be, and then we want to know why. If, for example, the information reveals a great disparity between where the assets have come from, that would raise a question that is worth investigating, and then we can go down the route that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggested and ask why this category produces so many dormant assets. I have also said that one should identify what has been spent in relation to each category of person and activity and what assets have been successfully claimed.
In subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) of my proposed new clause, I have sought to get together enough information to understand whether we can learn something about why there are these dominant assets so that Parliament can identify whether some policy is being pursued that is not explicitly apparent in the way that the asset is applied. Having fully admitted that my own amendment is, to the extent I have mentioned, defective—I also think it is too narrow now—I certainly support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, that, together, surely we ought to be able to arrive at a consensus as to what should be covered.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, following our Second Reading, I went away and reflected on the way in which the Bill has been received and debated in your Lordships’ House. It would be fair to say that noble Lords as a whole wish to be supportive of the Government in what they are trying to do in the Bill. However, from a number of different perspectives, we all have questions about the effectiveness and efficiency of this method of doing things.
In particular, I tabled my Amendment 63 to make the point that nowhere in this Bill, or in its predecessor, is there an explicit statement about what these assets are supposed to be used to achieve. If we do not know what the objectives are, it is difficult to measure either the effectiveness or the efficiency with which the vehicle that has been constructed is doing that. It therefore seems that we as a House have an obligation to look at the reporting mechanisms that already exist. There are many of them in different places. They are all bits and pieces that you have to go and look at in, for example, the National Lottery Community Fund reports or the Reclaim Fund Ltd reports. Much of the detail of income and expenditure is in those reports, but there is very little in any of them on what has happened in terms of the impact.
My understanding is that the fund exists to use dormant assets not just because they happen to be there but for specific purposes of financial inclusion and developing financial literacy, particularly within poorer communities. That is what I really want us to try to have. When the Minister introduced the Bill at Second Reading, I was very struck when she said to us that the main impetus behind it coming to us was from the financial services industry, which wishes to see more dormant assets being used. That is fine—I absolutely agree with that—but to what end, and is the expenditure on this being done properly?
Noble Lords have to understand that the charitable sector is in a seriously bad way. A year ago, the Government asked the charitable sector what it thought the impact of Covid would be. In the initial lockdown, it thought that it would lose £4 billion. We have been through three lockdowns since that one. The government funds released to the sector in response to that figure of £4 billion were £750 million, of which £150 million came from bringing forward some of the dormant assets referred to in the Bill. The whole of the charitable sector is going to experience severe problems. It is every part of it, from Cancer Research UK already having to delay some of its projected work for the next five years through to the small neighbourhood organisations.
It is therefore extremely important that these assets be used for the express purpose for which they have been given and used as effectively as possible. We must also be able to work out from all the reporting that we do get to see that the principle of additionality is being adhered to: that these are funds for a specific reason, and that they are largely treated as one-off and not as ongoing revenue, particularly when government comes to talk about its overall response to the charitable sector.
My amendment was in part a nod to the Public Accounts Committee’s report of 9 June, in which it came up with its analysis of the Government’s response to the charitable sector and Covid. I understand that that report relates not just to the £150 million of dormant assets funding but to the £750 million. Nevertheless, the PAC raised significant questions in it, not least about the National Lottery Community Fund being able to provide sufficient data about what is happening with the distribution of some of its funds to poorer communities. Similarly, the report raised questions with the Charity Commission and the Government about the ongoing viability of charities, which are sometimes involved in quite essential charitable work.
For all those reasons, I came up with my amendment. I am agnostic on the length of time to be taken. I do not think that, for a programme of this kind, it is worth doing reports of anything under three years, because I do not think that you can generate significant data in fewer than three years, but we should have reports that are something more than a succession of different sets of accounts and annual statements for the different bodies responsible for the collection or the distribution of money, and we should look at whether this will continue to be the best way to deal with this issue. That is my amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made a very important point about impact. I will come back to it in a moment in my remarks.
In the first instance, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, about the timing of reviews to look at whether the structure is working effectively now and will work effectively at some date in the future. I want to probe the Minister a little further about the situation now and the current operation of the system. Specifically, I want to ask her whether the Government think that the existing powers to investigate, measure and check are sufficient.
As I understand it—I stand to be corrected—under the present system, money from the fund is passed to recipient bodies or recipient groups by what are called distributors, which have clear responsibilities to decide which bodies are worthy of funding and should get the money, and, after the funds have been passed over, to ensure that the proceeds are spent properly, effectively and in accordance with the way envisaged at the time of the grant. Again, as I understand it, there are currently four distributors: Big Society Capital, Access, Fair4All Finance and the Youth Futures Foundation.
The work of these four distributors is overseen by the Oversight Trust, which has no power to determine where the money goes but is charged with ensuring that the distributors have effective procedures in place to ensure good governance and proper performance of their duties. Clearly, the Oversight Trust has a very important role to play in maintaining public trust and confidence in the dormant assets scheme.
Can my noble friend enlighten me on three points? First, can a new distributor be appointed or dis-appointed? Who decides that and initiates it? If a decision is made to go ahead, what powers, if any, does the Oversight Trust, which is responsible for monitoring that body, have in making that final decision? That is my first question: can we remove or add distributors? How do we do it? What role does the Oversight Trust have in that process?
Secondly, and more generally, are the Government satisfied that the Oversight Trust has the powers necessary to fulfil this important role? For example, are distributors required or obliged to collaborate and co-operate with the Oversight Trust to ensure that it performs its duties effectively?
Thirdly—this point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—what role, if any, does the Oversight Trust have in measuring the impact of what the distributors are doing? Do we look in any way at whether the distribution policy being followed by one of the four groups now in power to do this makes sense for our society, or are they free as a bird? It would be helpful if the Minister could say a little about that.
Finally, it must be of importance, as we begin to see the expansion of the whole scheme—I think every Member of your Lordships’ House thinks that it is a good idea in principle; I certainly do—to ensure that the governance structure is adequate for the increased responsibilities that will be placed on it. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure me on these points when she replies to the debate.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 45 in this group is in my name. As has already been pointed out, it differs from the other amendments in the group, which call for reports, as it is a targeted amendment focused on ensuring that the scope for new asset classes being added to the dormant assets arrangements under the Bill is kept under review. The other amendments are broader and seek reports on the impact and operation of the scheme. I do not support littering legislation with reports on the impact of Bills—that is what the post-legislative scrutiny process is for—so I do not support the other amendments in the group.
I was going to point out to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that his amendment is ineffective because Clause 31 deletes Section 14 from the 2008 Act, but he got there first. I would just explain that Section 14 was put in in the very specific context of the first Bill, the then Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill. At the time, there was considerable controversy about whether a voluntary scheme would work. There was much scepticism about whether banks and building societies would yield their assets, which is why that specific reporting section was put into the 2008 Act. It reported within a few years. It has been some time since I looked at that report but, broadly, it concluded that it had been effective. Not absolutely every bank and building society is in the scheme but, in terms of value, substantially the whole amount are.
I focused my amendment on bringing in other asset classes because it took a long time for this Bill to come forward after the 2008 Act. It was 13 years before more asset classes appeared, which is just too long. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister admitted as such at Second Reading when she said that the industry had been “nudging”—a polite term—the Government to get on and get this Bill done. I do not think that we can necessarily rely on the Government to prioritise or be proactive about the source of new funds coming into dormant assets, which is why I suggested a periodic report specifically on asset classes to keep up that pressure.
When the Dormant Assets Commission, which was set up to be independent of government, reported about four years ago it identified a number of additional assets. It decided to concentrate on the financial services sector, but even within that it noted, as we discussed at Second Reading, that a number of sources of assets in the financial services sector have not yet been brought within the scheme’s scope. The report also outlined a long list of assets outside the financial services sector, ranging from Oyster cards—I was astonished to find that there are 42 million cards with a balance on that have not been used for more than a year—to a large amount of money in unclaimed gambling winnings, which I find surprising. There are also lots of balances on things such as telephone accounts and energy accounts. There are lots of forms of dormant assets hanging around; they ought not to be retained by the companies that hold them but ought to be released for the kind of good works that are fostered by this Bill and the 2008 Act.
I hope that one day the Treasury will be shamed into no longer being the only body keeping its dormant assets out of the scheme, in the form of National Savings & Investments accounts. I believe it amounts to something close to state larceny for the Treasury to insist that it can keep dormant National Savings & Investments money because it has been used to fund public expenditure. It is not the Treasury’s money to keep. However, I acknowledge that shame is not something generally found in the Treasury, so we may have to wait a very long time to see those assets come within the scheme.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is quite useful to speak relatively late in this debate, because we have had a good flavour of the things that noble Lords are interested in. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about additional assets, although I disagree with her in that I think there is room, as many other noble Lords have suggested, for a more general review clause. As has been suggested, between us perhaps we can find what shape that should have. There may also be a question over whether to load the review of potential new assets into that repeating review or to have separate reviews. That is something I have not yet resolved on in my own mind.
Amendment 65 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Kramer concerns the report to Parliament, which is styled in the manner of a report from the Treasury and encompasses many of the features already discussed. It is obviously a probing amendment at this stage and covers a review of how the dormant assets scheme has worked, and then a review every three years.
It is probably too long not to have a review until three years from now. I almost want a review now, because an early review makes sense from the perspective of the point of transfer to Treasury responsibility and because there are now several years of experience of how the bank account side of things has progressed over time. That provides a datum against which to measure progression of other assets as they are brought in, and maybe to understand more about the differences as they emerge. I am sure that such monitoring has to be done anyway, but it is a matter of interest to Parliament. I therefore think it is reasonable to have the basis to interest Parliament with a review and to have a few more debates. I have not come across a debate on this before, though obviously I am much newer to this House than some other noble Lords.
I will highlight two specific things from my amendment. The first is the mention in proposed new subsection 1(b) of reviewing
“the effectiveness of the efforts made by financial institutions to secure that those entitled to money in inactive accounts are made aware of the fact.”
It now appears that there have been rather fewer claims on dormant assets than originally provided for—a matter we will return to in later amendments—but that does not explain what the various steps are and when they are taken.
I am curious about this from a recent personal experience when a bank used the notifier on a death certificate to locate the next of kin for one of my husband’s deceased brothers, but it was over 14 years after he died. The notifier had in fact moved, fortunately only once, and a letter eventually got to her and thence onward to my husband. I have absolutely no knowledge as to whether that is a typical time period before using such steps for tracing to take place, but it seems that the chance of success is much greater if tracing happens sooner and does not wait for when transfer to the dormant assets system is possible or imminent.
For pensions, of course, we are hoping that the pensions dashboard and other digital mechanisms will help keep people more attached to their money, but I am interested to know the point at which efforts are made, because it seems that it should not wait until that transfer point. It is thoughts such as that which lie behind seeking review of the effectiveness of efforts made by financial institutions. When things are done is as key to effectiveness as what has been done.
The second thing I want to highlight—it is really a collection rather than an individual point—are the issues in my subsection (2), in particular about the promptness of transfer of funds, their use and the value for money of the scheme. Again, as we will come on to in later amendments, there will have been caution over transfers at the start but by now there should be much more confidence about projections and risk assessments, and that should have flowed through to the efficiency and value for money of the scheme. It will also be important to follow what I would expect to be a similar kind of cautious and then maybe more aware progression for the new assets.
More generally, there seems to be a good case for review of all the matters that have been raised by the amendments in this group, and I hope that the Minister will note the interest in that and look favourably on an amendment on Report. If the Government were so inclined—as they seem to like amendments so far—to bring forward some more as a consequence of our discussion, maybe this is even something we could all work together on.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group touch on quite a wide range of topics. I hope it will be acceptable if I skim over them.
I want to start by picking up the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and even more strongly in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which stress the significance of—and make sure that there is capacity for—additional assets to be added to the scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, summed up that particular set of problems exceedingly well. There is absolutely no reason why the Treasury should be sitting on a whole lot of dormant assets. In fact, there is no reason why anybody should be sitting on a whole lot of dormant assets.
I would like an answer to the question about lifetime ISAs that I raised in the first group. I have no idea of the size of the pool of lifetime ISAs that cannot be put into the dormant assets scheme because without amendment that would trigger a taxable event. It would be good to have clarity on whether these are tiny sums or rather big numbers; I fear it is the latter. This would be a good opportunity to put some pressure on the Treasury to sit down and write the two or three clauses needed to amend that particular set of problems.
At Second Reading I mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, was considering tabling some amendments which would expand the scheme to include dormant betting accounts. I need to tell the Committee that he has decided not to, for some fairly straightforward reasons. After discussion with the industry, it became clear that it would not agree to participate in the scheme, which is voluntary. This is because under the current arrangements those dormant accounts can be reclassified into the profit lines of the various companies in the industry. Of course, they then pay taxes on those profits and it does impact nominally on the size of their contribution to the voluntary levy they are involved in, but it is still a meaningful source of income for them. I know that there is going to be reform of the gambling industry; this strikes me as an excellent opportunity to deal with that problem, because surely this should not be money for a company’s bottom line—these are dormant accounts, and I think all of us across the Committee would far rather see them put to good use.
I want to pick up a couple of issues raised in Amendment 65 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bowles, to which I have also added my name—particularly the paragraph she discussed on
“the effectiveness of the efforts made by financial institutions to secure that those entitled to money in inactive accounts are made aware of the fact.”
As she said, the right moment for this is as soon as the accounts begin to look dormant, not 14 years later.
I note the memo from the insurance trade body, the ABI, which most of us have probably received. It said that
“a step change in reconnection efforts will only truly be achieved through the use of Government data, which can be used to verify customers’ addresses and would vastly improve industry’s tracing efforts.”
Can the Minister comment on that? If things could be done at government level to greatly enhance reclaim, that would be useful and a comfort to all of us as we become much more aggressive about making sure that more and more assets go into the dormant assets scheme.
I move to the points made by my noble friend Lady Barker on the impact of the dormant assets scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested that it is not something to review, but we have to recognise that this is not a straightforward area. Since we have mandated the scheme, we surely have a responsibility to know what happens with those dormant assets and exactly what they are achieving. I make a gentle point, noting the 9 June report of the Public Accounts Committee in the other place on the distribution of Covid support for charities, which says that it is
“unclear what influence special advisers had over some funding decisions, with some charities awarded government funding despite the Department’s officials initially scoring their bids in the lowest scoring category, including four out of the five lowest scoring applications.”
This suggests that identifying who should be a recipient is not straightforward. While we hope, of course, that we have chosen the right intermediaries, that they have processes in place and that the oversight is working, I believe that Parliament cannot walk away from this—so it is necessary that a report comes back to us covering this range of issues.
We will address additionality later but, if the Minister is concerned to explain constantly that the dormant assets scheme is entirely independent from the Government, she might want to look at the Government’s own website. I was going to quote it next week and had it in front of me just a moment ago. Anybody reading it would certainly assume that the Government were entirely in control, certainly of the £150 million from dormant assets that was used to support Covid. I have the text before me now. It says:
“The government has pledged £750 million to ensure VCSE can continue their vital work supporting the country … including £200 million for the Coronavirus Community Support Fund, along with an additional £150 million from dormant bank and building society accounts.”
To anybody reading that document, the Government have made clear that this is their decision, direction and influence. If that is not the case, it should not be written in that way; the Government cannot have it both ways. This may be independent and the money distributed on the basis set out in this legislation, but we are moving towards a situation in which the Secretary of State will be able to have a great deal of direct influence over where the money is distributed by changing the uses of the funds, et cetera. All of that brings us back to reporting for clarity, to make sure that everything is transparent—that strikes me as crucial.
I very much support all the measures here which, in various ways and in different clauses, call for proper review and transparency. Many of us coming to this for the first time have been quite shocked at how little anybody seems to know about a scheme that has been controlling £1 billion in assets and will be controlling several billion more in assets, and which surely will have a very significant impact for good, ill or indifference—so we really do need answers to all our questions.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your proposals on reviewing various aspects of the dormant assets scheme, and for raising the important issue of transparency. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I will try to organise the amendments into different groups, because I believe that they cover three aspects of reporting. The first relates to regular reporting to Parliament on the operation of the scheme. The second relates to the role of reporting as a mechanism for encouraging further expansion of the asset classes that are eligible for inclusion in the scheme. The third relates to reporting in relation to the impact of the scheme.
On the first aspect, I turn to Amendments 61, 62 and 65, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Kramer, which call for a regular government report on the scheme’s operations, including, for example, the amounts transferred into the scheme, by whom they were transferred, how they have been applied and the amounts reclaimed from RFL. I am grateful to your Lordships for raising these issues, and certainly agree on the importance of such transparency.
We believe that there are a number of mechanisms already in place for reporting on the scheme’s operations. Some of them are well established. For example, as the scheme administrator, RFL publishes annual reports that set out, among other metrics, the amounts it receives from participants and the value of reclaims. Other mechanisms have only recently been set up with RFL’s establishment as an arm’s-length body of the Treasury. For example, the Government will now be monitoring RFL’s delivery against the scheme’s objectives on a quarterly basis. In addition, the relevant Select Committee can always probe the working of the scheme at any point, and the Bill may be subject to post-legislative scrutiny, which takes place between three and five years after Royal Assent. In addition, starting in the current financial year, RFL will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who will be able to report to the House of Commons the result of any value-for-money assessment it carries out. This will enhance Parliament’s oversight of RFL’s delivery of the scheme.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, asked about the transposition of Section 14 from the original Act into this Bill. As he noted, the original Act required the Treasury to undertake a review of the legislation and lay it before Parliament within three years of the date that the reclaim fund was first authorised—and this review was indeed published in 2014.
I have tried to set out a number of the mechanisms that are now in place for reporting on the scheme’s operations, and we believe that these combined efforts do provide a greater level of transparency on the scheme’s operations and allow for flexibility in monitoring RFL’s delivery of the scheme as it works on the phased introduction and implementation of these new and more complex assets. By tightly prescribing the timing for carrying out such a review, an equivalent to Section 14 would, we believe, have a potentially limiting impact.
However, the basic principle that I have heard from your Lordships this afternoon is the importance of transparency and robust reporting—how much money, where is it coming from, what is the asset type, what is the purpose and what is the reclaim experience? We believe that all these points are covered, but we are anxious that your Lordships should agree that they are transparent and easy to access. So I am very happy to meet your Lordships ahead of Report to go through this in more detail and make sure that our understanding of the transparency that we believe the current reporting mechanisms offer indeed aligns with what your Lordships seek.
I will now turn to Amendments 4, 45 and 61, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lady Noakes, relating to the role of reporting in encouraging further expansion of the scheme. Over the past five years, the Government and the reclaim fund have worked closely with industry on the scope and design of an expanded scheme, and I am extremely grateful for their hard work and dedication in helping to realise these very ambitious plans. While our industry stakeholders are keen to maintain momentum, they have consistently recommended a phased approach to expansion. This will allow participants to deepen their understanding of the scheme and to implement new processes progressively. This also enables RFL to build experience managing these new and more complex assets.
Decisions on which assets should be included in the future will depend on a number of factors, including identifying asset classes with high instances of dormancy and then setting the dormancy definitions for, and quantifying the value of, such assets. Consideration may also be given to whether other mechanisms for dealing with dormancy already exist and how these could interact with the scheme. Any further expansion will require the same close collaboration between the Government, the reclaim fund and industry, which has supported this phase of expansion.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked about the inclusion of additional asset classes, and my noble friend Lady Noakes strayed into the territory of state larceny—on which, obviously, I could not possibly comment. To be clear, at this stage the Government are not considering widening the net to include non-financial services assets. My noble friend talked about Oyster cards; the Bill contains a power to extend the scheme in future by way of regulations, and this obviously offers a more flexible avenue to reconsider whether some types of non-financial assets should be included in future. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, also asked about the potential to expand to other forms of pension. Occupational pensions are excluded under the scheme as they are trust based, belonging to a fund or a group of investors rather than a specific identifiable individual. Only contract-based pension schemes are within the scope of the Bill.
To date, bringing new assets into the scheme has required primary legislation. As I just mentioned, Clause 19 provides a power to extend the scheme without need for this. In future it will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, rightfully allowing Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise such regulations before they are made. It is natural that we will continue to review which assets may be suitable for further expansion. I will consider the best mechanism and timing to achieve this, taking into account the implementation of this phase and RFL’s quarterly reporting to the Government.
Further to this, the UK Government remain committed to engaging with the devolved Administrations on any legislative proposals or statutory changes that could have an impact on transferred or devolved matters of competence. This is in line with the principles set out in the devolution memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. We will consult with the Northern Ireland Executive where the provision of any statutory instrument laid under Clause 19 will have an impact on transferred areas of competence in Northern Ireland—for example, the regulation of credit unions—with a view to obtaining mutual agreement on any approach before taking it forward.
Before I turn to Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I would like to make sure that we are on the same page about the £750 million and the £150 million. The £750 million was funding from the Treasury for the charitable sector, including social enterprises. The £150 million was in addition to that; it came from dormant assets and was distributed to the existing organisations.
Amendment 63 considers the impact of the scheme. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Baroness for placing emphasis on having transparency and clarity in reporting on this issue. If I followed her question correctly, she asked why this was not in the Bill. As she knows, this is something that we proposed putting into secondary legislation, with the purposes being specified through a public consultation.
As your Lordships know, the scheme provides long-term flexible funding that enables expert organisations to focus on creating positive and systemic change. It is essential that this funding has a positive impact by contributing to the social and environmental initiatives for which it is designed. The independent spend organisations are regularly reviewed by the Oversight Trust, which is their parent body, to examine their effectiveness in delivering against their objectives. They are also subject to standard annual reporting requirements.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson asked a number of specific questions about the role of the Oversight Trust. He will be aware that it was set up relatively recently in its current form. I will cite the example of Fair4All Finance, which was established in February 2019 following widespread consultation with almost 100 organisations, and I am sure that, had the Oversight Trust existed at that time, it would have been part of that. I do believe that it has the powers necessary to look at the impact of the different distribution organisations. As my noble friend knows, the issue of measuring impact in this area—attribution versus contribution and all the other complexities—is genuinely very difficult, but we are extremely encouraged by some of the early reports from the Oversight Trust on the way that it has approached that. I will briefly comment on that now.
As I mentioned, the independent spend organisations are regularly reviewed by the Oversight Trust on their effectiveness in delivering against their objectives—that happens every four years—and they are also subject to standard annual reporting requirements. The Oversight Trust’s review of Big Society Capital was published in 2020. It reported that Big Society Capital had made substantial progress in catalysing development of the UK social investment marketplace, which was one of its primary original objectives. For example, social property funds, which did not exist at all in 2012, are now worth more than £2 billion.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I naively had it in my mind when I spoke that I was speaking only to Amendment 4. I cannot come back on the substance of the amendments, but I have a couple of specific questions. First, in the formal consultation, and in the previous reviews, the Government said that they recognised
“the strong interest in the ways that funds can best be spent”,
even though it was outside the consultation, and that:
“Accordingly, we will consider whether this is an area that should be reviewed”—
in other words, other ways of spending the money. Is this what the Minister just referred to or is it a separate exercise that is being considered?
In the Second Reading debate, the Minister referred to the additionality principle in her introduction. She said:
“Money must fulfil the additionality principle, so it cannot be used as a substitute for central government funding.”—[Official Report, 26/5/21; cols. 1035.]
In response to the debate, she said:
“There was a lot of discussion about the additionality principle. This is set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to the 2008 Act and remains unchanged.”—[Official Report, 26/5/21; cols. 1084.]
Of course, I turned to the 2008 Act. It is far from explicitly set out; it is actually set out only at one remove. It refers to the need for the Big Lottery Fund to cover the issue in the annual report and to say how it complied with that requirement. It does not set out explicitly what is meant by additionality, so my second question is would it not be better to have a clear and specific definition of what is meant by additionality, given the emphasis the Government place on it as a pillar of the scheme?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his additional questions. He talked about other ways of spending the funds. I was talking about other causes; I am not sure whether we are using different words for the same thing. In the consultation that we are proposing, we will invite the public to name the issues they care about on which these funds should be used—the aim being to have that in secondary rather than primary legislation to make it a bit more flexible—as opposed to using different types of spend organisations. I was referring to the causes on which that will be spent.
I think that issues of additionality are likely to come up quite frequently, particularly on Wednesday, when we debate some of the other amendments. Perhaps we can take that issue in the round then, if the noble Lord is agreeable.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said it all, in the sense that this has been an extremely wide-ranging debate covering many topics, even though, as I said at the outset, we are fishing in the same pool here looking for a form of review. I thank the Minister for her very full, detailed and thorough response. I will have to read it carefully before deciding what to do about this subject area on Report.
I also thank her for the opportunity she has afforded us through her response of meeting and considering what other ways there may be to look at the impact of the dormant assets review and how we can best formulate it. I think she was inviting us to subscribe to an amendment that covers that point, but I am not sure yet. I look forward to having that discussion with her.
It is perhaps worth reflecting on comments that colleagues made. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, knows that I agree with her that there is not much point bringing forward amendments that lead to pointless reports unless those reports have an action at the end of them. That is why my amendment in particular calls for a review with the purpose of leading to something. That is why it is important that we have an early review. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked for a review now. “Now” may be in two years’ time after the Bill has passed—that would be about right—and periodic reviews thereafter.
The good thing about this legislation is that flexibility is brought into it. Although at the moment it is limited to financial products, in her response the Minister did not seem to rule out entirely that it might be extended to cover non-financial products. I liked the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, looking at things such as Oyster cards, gambling winnings and utility accounts. At Second Reading I raised that assets from criminal activity might be brought into the scheme. That is perhaps going a bit far at this stage, but we are all looking at ways in which we can expand dormant assets so that they can be used for a broader social purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was right to ask whether the powers are sufficient at the moment. I want to be confident that is right. As the Minister acknowledged, the Oversight Trust is very much in its early phase of development, though clearly it has done some important and valuable work so far.
The Minister said that transparency could be guaranteed through a number of routes: the RFL, Select Committees and post-legislative scrutiny. That is true—there is no doubt that those routes are available—but one of the reasons I am keen to see a review process built into the legislation is that we need to have that review in one place so that we can look across the piece in a more coherent and cohesive way, decide whether the dormant assets are having impact, determine whether there are other financial and non-financial assets that could be brought within its scope and see that there is a degree of transparency about the way in which the legislation is operating. That is why I am keen to see a review process.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, made a good point about the need to look at the derivation and application of funds: where from and why? That is really part of the thinking behind my amendment and, I think, other amendments in this group.
We have had a very good discussion on this. It is an important part of the legislation. I welcome the Minister’s offer of some discussions and restate my intent to bring back an amendment that captures the best of the other amendments and brings them to bear on how we move forward in reviewing how this legislation works. I am grateful to everybody for their interest and support on this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
“(9) In this Part—(a) any reference to an amount owing (or payable) to a person includes a reference to an amount which is not immediately payable to the person only because it is necessary for a request for payment to be made or for the person’s entitlement to payment to be verified, and(b) any reference to the right to payment of an amount owing (or payable) includes, in the case of an amount described in paragraph (a), the right to request payment of the amount.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that the provisions of Part 1 relating to transfers of dormant assets to an authorised reclaim fund cover not only cases where an amount is payable immediately (i.e. as a debt) but also cases where the person entitled to an amount needs to request payment, or that person’s entitlement needs to be verified, before the amount becomes payable immediately.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would correct an inconsistency between Clause 2(2)(a) and corresponding provisions elsewhere in Part 1, such as Clause 8(2)(a).
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, on 14 June the Minister tabled minor and technical amendments that, as she has explained to the Committee, are needed to ensure that the Bill works properly. These included changes for clarity and consistency and updates to references and consequential amendments. My noble friend set out these amendments, along with some further detail, in her letter to all noble Lords on the same date.
The changes relating to consistency can be grouped into two categories. The first, including Amendments 6, 10 and 12, seeks to ensure consistency of language in the insurance and pension transfer provisions. This includes a change of tense to align with other transfer provisions. These amendments would change references to a person to whom the benefits or proceeds
“were payable immediately before the transfer”
to a person to whom they are
“payable immediately before the transfer”.
The other change to the insurance and pension transfer provisions is to correct a minor terminological error in Clause 7(5)(c), which should refer to the “benefits” rather than the “proceeds”, aligning with the pension benefits mentioned in the opening words of Clause 7(5).
The second category, including Amendments 34 to 37, seeks to ensure consistency of language in references to shareholders. In particular, it would change references to the individual in whose name the share was “held” to the individual in whose name the share was “registered” so that there could be no doubt that the Bill refers to the same individual. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I have nothing to add. I looked at the amendments and they all seem to make technical sense to me.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have nothing to add except that government Amendment 12 is described as a “verbal error”. I am not quite sure that you can have a verbal error in a piece of written legislation; perhaps the Minister can help us with that one.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their support and brevity. As I said, these are minor amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, alighted on “verbal”. I changed that word in my opening to this short debate to “terminological”; I hope he agrees that that is a bit clearer. Either way, I hope he sees that it is de minimis.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment at page 3, line 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment at page 3, line 35.
“(2A) Proceeds of a contract of long-term insurance held in a Lifetime ISA are excluded from subsection (1) if their transfer to an authorised reclaim fund would result in liability to pay a withdrawal charge to HMRC.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would secure that insurance proceeds held in a Lifetime ISA are excluded from “eligible insurance proceeds” only when their transfer to a reclaim fund would trigger liability to a withdrawal charge payable to HMRC.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This would correct an inconsistency of expression between Clause 5(2)(a) and corresponding provisions elsewhere in Part 1, such as Clause 8(2)(a).
Member’s explanatory statement
This would correct two minor errors in Clause 7(3)(b)(ii). The reference to subsection (2)(a) is unnecessary and should be removed. And “a person” at the beginning is more accurate than “the person”, as there may be no person of the kind mentioned.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, again, these amendments relate to the minor and technical amendments about which the Minister, my noble friend Lady Barran, wrote to your Lordships on 14 June.
Amendments 66 to 72 are consequential amendments to the schedules to other pieces of legislation. Amendment 66 would amend references in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to an “authorised reclaim fund”; it would also amend the regulated activities order to ensure that it reflects the wider activities of a reclaim fund provided for by the Bill.
Amendments 67 to 71 would amend the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. Amendment 67 would ensure that the provisions made in Clause 17(1) of the Bill, on trust and fiduciary duties, apply to banking assets. Amendments 68 and 69 would clarify that the Reclaim Fund is to transfer money from unwanted assets to the National Lottery Community Fund while being able to retain the amount it needs to meet regulatory requirements or expenses. Amendment 70 would remove an unnecessary reference to the deduction of expenses from surplus funds. As these have already been identified as surplus and therefore available in full for transfer to good causes, no further deductions would be needed. Amendments 71 and 72 would ensure that the 2008 Act refers to all types of eligible pensions benefits.
The other amendments—Amendments 11, 32, 38 to 41, 43, 47 to 49, 73, 74 and 76—would ensure that cross-references to the Bill are correct. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will again be brief but I went nearly mad trying to track some of these amendments through. I accept that they are consequential but I have one question. FSMA 2000, an Act with which I have spent far too much of my life, will—after these amendments—now use the phrase “unwanted asset money”. Are the Government comfortable that we do not have a problem with the word “unwanted”? There is a difference between dormant money and money that is unwanted. We all know that the reclaim process is critical but I want to be sure that we have not got ourselves into any tricky corners with all of that. That is my only comment; the intent is obviously consequential.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too am broadly satisfied with this collection of amendments, although they raise some questions about the initial drafting. I made a point about that at the outset of this afternoon’s deliberations. I just wonder why we have to amend the definition of “third party” by government Amendment 47. Also, what is not right—this is in government Amendment 49—with the definition of “repayment claims” that requires amendment? Perhaps the Minister could help us with that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Again, I am grateful to the noble Lords for their support, particularly given the large number of amendments, albeit small ones. To answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the use of “unwanted asset” is the intended terminology. “Unwanted” is different from “dormant”.
On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, if he will forgive me, given the speed of progress on this group, it might be better if I make sure that I have understood it and write to him with a full answer so that he has that before Report. With that, I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This would correct a minor verbal error in Clause 7(5)(c), which should refer to “the benefits” i.e. the pension benefits mentioned in the opening words of Clause 7(5).
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment at page 8, line 30.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment at page 8, line 30.
“(3A) An amount held in a Lifetime ISA is excluded from subsection (3) if its transfer to an authorised reclaim fund would result in liability to pay a withdrawal charge to HMRC.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would secure that an amount held in a Lifetime ISA is excluded from “eligible amount owing by virtue of a collective investment” only when its transfer to a reclaim fund would trigger liability to a withdrawal charge payable to HMRC.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would amend Clause 9(5)(a) so that it applies in the case of a wound-up OEIC or sub-fund of an OEIC which is an “umbrella company”. The term “umbrella company sub-fund” is defined in the text proposed to be inserted by the government amendment leaving out paragraphs 9(6)(b) and (c) on page 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would amend Clause 9(5)(b) so that it applies in the case of a wound-up unit trust scheme or a terminated sub-fund of an umbrella unit trust scheme. The term “umbrella unit trust scheme sub-fund” is defined in the text proposed to be inserted by the government amendment leaving out paragraphs 9(6)(b) and (c) on page 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would amend Clause 9(5)(c) so that it applies in the case of a wound-up authorised contractual scheme or a terminated sub-fund of an umbrella co-ownership scheme. The term “umbrella co-ownership scheme sub-fund” is defined in the text proposed to be inserted by the government amendment leaving out paragraphs 9(6)(b) and (c) on page 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would leave out words rendered redundant by text proposed to be inserted by the government amendment leaving out paragraphs 9(6)(b) and (c) on page 9.
“(b) “umbrella company sub-fund” means a separate part of the property of an umbrella company that is pooled separately;(c) “umbrella unit trust scheme sub-fund” means a separate part of the property of an umbrella unit trust that is pooled separately;(d) “umbrella co-ownership scheme sub-fund” means a separate part of the property of an umbrella co-ownership scheme that is pooled separately.”(7) In subsection (6)—“umbrella company” means an OEIC whose instrument of incorporation provides for pooling in relation to separate parts of the scheme property and whose shareholders are entitled to exchange rights in one part for rights in another;“umbrella co-ownership scheme” means an authorised contractual scheme whose contractual scheme deed provides for pooling in relation to separate parts of the scheme property and whose unitholders are entitled to exchange rights in one part for rights in another; and“umbrella unit trust scheme” means an authorised unit trust whose trust deed provides for pooling in relation to separate parts of the unit trust property and whose unitholders are entitled to exchange rights in one part for rights in another;and in this subsection and subsection (6) references to pooling are to such pooling as is mentioned in section 235(3)(a) of FSMA 2000 (collective investment schemes).”Member’s explanatory statement
This would define the terms “umbrella company sub-fund”, “umbrella unit trust scheme sub-fund” and “umbrella co-ownership scheme sub-fund”, as used in Clause 9(5).
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting amendment to secure consistency of expression across Part 1 of the Bill in consequence of the proposed removal of subsection (3) of Clause 12 by the government amendment to page 11, line 14.
“(a) a person to whom the amount is payable immediately before the transfer ceases to have any right against any investment institution to payment of the amount, but”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting amendment to secure consistency of expression across Part 1 of the Bill in consequence of the proposed removal of subsection (3) of Clause 12 by the government amendment to page 11, line 14.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 12.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with the other government amendments to Clause 12, would remove references to a person entitled to direct the payment of an amount of dormant eligible client money and brings Clause 12 in line with other similar provisions in Part 1. Cases where payment of a dormant amount needs to be requested, or entitlement verified, before an amount becomes owing (or payable) to a person will be covered by the government amendment to Clause 1 proposed at page 2, line 45.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment at page 11, line 31.
“(5A) Client money held in a Lifetime ISA is excluded from subsection (5) if its transfer to an authorised reclaim fund would result in liability to pay a withdrawal charge to HMRC.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would exclude from “eligible client money” client money held in a Lifetime ISA at a time when its transfer to a reclaim fund would result in liability to pay a withdrawal charge to HMRC.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment at page 11, line 31.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 12.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 12.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 12.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This would correct an inconsistency of expression between Clause 14(2)(a) and corresponding provisions elsewhere in Part 1, such as Clause 8(2)(a).
Member’s explanatory statement
This would limit the scope of the definitions in Clause 14(3) to Clauses 14 to 16, as there are other references in the Bill to a share for which the Clause 14(3) definition is inapt.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment at page 13, line 4.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make the language in Clause 15(1) consistent with Clause 14(1)(a).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendment at page 13, line 4.
“(1A) An amount held in a Lifetime ISA is excluded from subsection (1) if its transfer to an authorised reclaim fund would result in liability to pay a withdrawal charge to HMRC.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would secure that an amount held in a Lifetime ISA is excluded from “eligible proceeds or distribution” only when its transfer to a reclaim fund would result in liability to pay a withdrawal charge to HMRC.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make the language in Clause 16(3)(a) consistent with Clause 14(1)(a).
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with the government amendments at lines 9, 11, 14, 17 and 19 on page 14, would ensure that Clause 17 refers to the correct provisions of Part 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the government amendment at page 14, line 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the government amendment at page 14, line 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the government amendment at page 14, line 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove an unnecessary word in Clause 17(4) to ensure it applies correctly to a right to payment of the reclaim amount referred to in Clause 8(2)(b).
(5) In this section—“extinguishing provision” means section 2(2)(a), 5(2)(a) or (3)(a), 8(2)(a), 12(2)(a) or 14(2)(a);“right to payment provision” means section 2(2)(b), 5(2)(b) or (3)(b), 8(2)(b), 12(2)(b) or 14(2)(b); and“transfer provision” means section 2(1)(a), 5(1)(a), 8(1)(a), 12(1)(a) or 14(1)(a).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the government amendment at page 14, line 4.
Baroness Barran
““withdrawal charge payable to HMRC” means a charge payable under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would define “withdrawal charge payable to HMRC” by reference to the primary legislation governing Lifetime ISAs.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting amendment to secure greater consistency of expression in references to a person’s right to payment of a dormant amount owing.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This would amend the definition of “third party” in Clause 22(2) so that it refers to claims arising by virtue of Clause 5(3)(b), as well as those arising by virtue of Clause 5(2)(b).
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that Clause 24(1) refers to claims arising by virtue of Clause 5(3)(b), as well as those arising by virtue of Clause 5(2)(b).
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This would amend the definition of “repayment claims” in Clause 25(3) so that it covers claims arising by virtue of Clause 5(3)(b), as well as those arising by virtue of Clause 5(2)(b).
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 50.
Amendment 50
Baroness Noakes
“Examination by Comptroller and Auditor General
(1) The Comptroller and Auditor General (“the Comptroller”) may carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which Reclaim Fund Ltd has used its resources in discharging its functions.(2) An examination under this section may be limited to such functions (however described) of Reclaim Fund Ltd as the Comptroller considers appropriate.(3) Before carrying out an examination under this section, the Comptroller must consult Reclaim Fund Ltd.(4) The Comptroller may report to the House of Commons the results of any examination carried out under this section.”
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for adding her name to the amendment.
At Second Reading, I asked the Government whether they would switch from using private sector auditors for Reclaim Fund Ltd to using the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I was disappointed that my noble friend the Minister did not reply to that when she wound up the debate; nor did she write to me following the debate. However, the Government’s Back-Benchers are well aware that they are generally not the priority of Ministers and I do not hold it against her.
At Second Reading, my primary focus was on switching the statutory audit arrangements. All limited liability companies, apart from very small ones, are required to be audited by statutory auditors. The Companies Act 2006 opened up the possibility, for the first time, of the appointment of the C&AG to companies in the public sector. That was in response to a report by Lord Sharman, who sadly has now retired from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will explain what arrangements will be made for the statutory audit of Reclaim Fund Ltd, now that it is fully within the public sector. It has been audited by private sector auditors to date. I continue to believe that it should be audited by the C&AG.
Last week, I had a helpful meeting with my noble friend the Minister and her officials. They said that the audit would be carried out by the C&AG in future and that the power for this existed under the National Audit Act 1983. This left me a little confused because that Act does not deal with the statutory audit of companies incorporated under the Companies Act. I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify the position today. In the first group, she referred to value-for-money auditing—I shall come to that in a moment—but she did not refer to statutory audit.
My reasons for shifting the financial audit of Reclaim Fund Ltd from private sector auditors were partly because it would be cheaper but mainly because the National Audit Office carries out value-for-money work, not just financial audits. I believe that there are strong grounds for believing that the activities of Reclaim Fund Ltd would benefit from a value-for-money audit. For example, I believe that the ultra-cautious approach to the investment of the huge funds that are retained within the company has not optimised the income of the company. It has offices in St James’s Square, which, I wager, is not the most cost-effective location. Every penny that is either spent unwisely or represents forgone income translates into less money flowing to the good causes that should be funded by the dormant assets.
This is why I have tabled an amendment for Committee that focuses on value-for-money audits alone. Value-for-money audits are a routine part of auditing in the public sector, and those bodies that are in the public sector but are not government departments usually have the C&AG specified as their auditor by statute. However, some, like Reclaim Fund Ltd, are not set up like this and value-for-money audits generally proceed on a voluntary basis. I assume that this will be the basis underpinning the upcoming VFM audits that my noble friend referred to earlier.
As there have been some difficulties in getting the NAO into some bodies in the past, it has been necessary from time to time to make statutory provision for this. However, these have generally been big beasts rather than a small company such as Reclaim Fund Ltd. My amendment is drafted on the basis of what is now Section 7D of the Bank of England Act 1998—inserted by the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016—which was necessary to get access for the C&AG to carry out value-for-money audits in the Bank of England. Obviously, it would be best if the C&AG did both financial and value-for-money audits on Reclaim Fund Ltd.
I very much look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister says. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment because I support entirely the objective that has been so well outlined already by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Like her, I share the view that both the statutory audit and the value-for-money audit should be provided for. I will defer to her superior knowledge in terms of which bodies tend to be routinely audited or where there is a degree of optionality, or, at least, life is made difficult so that you have to have something like Section 7D of the Bank of England Act 1998. I too had a meeting with colleagues and the Minister in which I believe it was said that the audit would be by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but I am not sure now whether that is absolutely the case, given what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has said.
It is very important that we have, for the record, a knowledge of exactly what is expected to happen and whether there is any optionality about it. If there is some kind of optionality, then it is necessary to have an amendment of the kind proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The record has to be clear as to what will happen. I am sure the Minister has all the best intentions, but it is obviously not quite such a clear-cut situation as we have been led to believe. If no fulsome response is available at this point in time, then it is absolutely necessary that we have the information about that well in advance of Report so that we can know whether there is still a need for the amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment, which I support in principle. I am not saying this in jest, but I am always gravely suspicious of lists which involve alliteration, because you are left wondering whether the wish to have all the words starting with the letter E—economy, efficiency and effectiveness—overcomes the need to comprehensively describe what the audit should be doing. Where does “economy, efficiency and effectiveness” come from? Maybe it is a standard phrase which is well established and understood to be comprehensive, but reassurance on that would be helpful.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I very much support everything that has been said so far, and I hope that we will get some clarity. Value for money is critical when we are dealing with these kinds of organisations.
I decided I would take a quick look at the financials of Reclaim Fund Ltd—which does not take very long as they are not hugely detailed—and the number that knocked me over and made me very concerned that value for money was definitely on the agenda was the remuneration of the chief executive. They may be an absolutely stellar individual and I would not wish in any way to criticise the individual personally but, according to the numbers I was looking at, there are 12 employees of Reclaim Fund Ltd, one of whom is the chief executive himself, and the chair. The median CEO salary in 2019 at the largest 100 charities was £155,000 a year, but in 2020 the chief executive of Reclaim Fund Ltd earned £217,000, if I add up simply salary and performance-related pay and leave out the pensions stuff. It struck me as prima facie rather out of line. Making sure that there is an audit that takes value for money into account would certainly give us all much more confidence that these issues were being handled appropriately. I fully understand that, as the asset base expands, there will be more complexity, so maybe there is a changing situation. But the 2019 pay packet was similar and I want to make sure that the appropriate body is focused properly on these issues and that value for money sits right at the front of the audit responsibility.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is always nice to be able to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We have crossed swords many times, but I very much share one thing in common with her, and that is a desire to have an absolutely laser focus on getting value for money. So I am very supportive of her amendment; it certainly goes to the right place. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, touched on the importance of that in drawing our attention to remuneration levels within Reclaim Fund Ltd.
We need to be assured that we are getting value for money. Getting the Comptroller and Auditor-General involved in looking at the Reclaim Fund Ltd is a valuable use of the time of that body, because we need to better understand how funds are being used and be reassured that the best possible value for money is being secured. After all, this is a very significant funding mechanism and we need to ensure that, as part of it, the Reclaim Fund Ltd operates to the best and highest of standards. My noble friend Lord Davies is right that we need to focus on issues such as efficiency and effectiveness of spend, so I am very supportive of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 50 seeks to provide a power for the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the C&AG, to examine the Reclaim Fund Ltd for its economy, efficiency and effectiveness in using its resources to carry out its functions—also known as a value-for-money assessment—and to lay the result of the examination before Parliament.
I will first address the question on RFL’s auditors that my noble friend Lady Noakes asked at Second Reading. As set out in the Government’s framework agreement with RFL, which has been published in the Libraries of both Houses, the C&AG will audit the company’s accounts. This will be possible because of the explicit agreement made between RFL and the Treasury for such an arrangement. I hope that my noble friend will feel that that is sufficiently clear.
I know that my noble friend was also anxious to confirm that both the value-for-money assessment and the audit would be carried out by the same body, so, to continue in that vein, the C&AG may also carry out value-for-money assessments of the Reclaim Fund Ltd in the way proposed in subsection (1) in my noble friend’s amendment. The C&AG can carry out value-for-money assessments of public bodies under the National Audit Act 1983. The Act enables the C&AG to carry out value-for-money assessments of a body if there is an agreement between the body and a Minister of the Crown that requires the body’s accounts to be examined and certified by the C&AG and that enables value-for-money assessments to take place. This is set out in Section 6(3)(d) and 6(5) of the National Audit Act. An agreement has been made between the Treasury and RFL that meets these conditions of the Act, and this arrangement is outlined in the RFL/Treasury framework agreement.
Value-for-money assessments can be undertaken under Section 6 of the National Audit Act in relation to many public bodies, including UK Asset Resolution, the British Business Bank and S4C, the Welsh language broadcaster, to name but a few. In future, the Comptroller and Auditor-General will be able to undertake value-for-money assessments in relation to RFL.
Section 9 of the National Audit Act 1983 enables the Comptroller and Auditor- General to report to the House of Commons the result of any value-for-money assessment carried out under Section 6 of the Act. So, the provisions in the Act, which as I have already explained are applicable to RFL, also make provision for the Comptroller and Auditor- General to bring the results of the value-for-money assessments to the attention of the House of Commons.
My noble friend picked up on the location of RFL’s offices in St James’s. My understanding is that this is the registered address of the company secretary and that RFL is actually based in Crewe. I hope my noble friend sees that as a more cost-effective, dare I say levelling-up, option.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her comments, which seem to have addressed all the points I was seeking to make. I think it is important that all bodies in the public sector are subject to public sector audit for various reasons—not least value for money, the subject of my amendment. I am grateful to her for setting that out in detail and I do not mind what she calls me on that basis. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(3) The provision in subsection (2) may be taken into consideration by an authorised reclaim fund when setting the amount of reserve that it holds in order to meet any reclaims.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe the Government’s guarantee with a view to enabling a lower reserve: currently Reclaim Fund Ltd reserves 40% of its funds to meet any reclaims and releases the remainder to charity.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is a probing amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Kramer. I also support the similar aim in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
As I indicated at Second Reading, I was surprised at the level of funds kept back from distribution in order to cover possible repayments. It was 40% that alarmed me but, as the Minister explained subsequently in our meeting, it was actually 60%, which is even more alarming. That is travel in the right direction, but it still seems to be excessive prudence.
With regard to bank and building society account assets, even if there were no change in the status of Reclaim Fund Ltd, there is a change of status in that the Government are essentially a guarantor and can provide a loan to cover a deficit. That makes a difference and it should be utilised, whether by influencing the risk appetite, which is where I have directed my amendment, or by specific guarantee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggests.
I am not suggesting that a reclaim fund should take an outlandish view of risk, but the fact is that it should not be necessary to be ultra-cautious, because the consequence of extraordinary and unexpected reclaim amounts would be the triggering of a loan from the Treasury rather than a call on the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. I am well aware that protection of such compensation schemes can feature as a large factor in the mind of the regulators when they give advice about what would be the right approach. We know this to be a fact when it comes to the Pensions Regulator; I have discussed that extensively on another Bill, although that is not in the Minister’s purview. It could well have been a factor in the Financial Conduct Authority’s computations and its part in advising on the provisioning. I would like to know whether that is the case and whether there is any suggestion of reviewing that in the light of the change in status and the removal of access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and its replacement with the availability of the Government’s loan.
I recognise the need to protect the public purse, about which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is concerned in his amendment, but a loan is not a giveaway; it is a mechanism to smooth the unexpected and remove the need for an excessively cautious risk appetite. That is the direction I am coming from in my amendment: to allow the loan possibility to influence risk appetite and change it from an ultra-cautious to a mid-range approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has taken a more formalised accounting approach and I have no problem with that as a mechanism. The point on which we concur is that being ultra-cautious needlessly keeps funds doing nothing. That is wasteful when the loan facility or another mechanism exists. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 53 in this group. It is very much on the theme of Amendment 51, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, just spoke to. As she said, the common ground between us is that the amount of money kept back in Reclaim Fund Ltd as reserves for repayment claims is much too high. Like her, I was shocked when I found out that the company started off by holding back 60% of the funds transferred from banks and building societies. The fact that it is now 40% is no great comfort.
When the then 2008 Bill was debated in your Lordships’ House, the Government could offer no estimate of the amounts that would be held back, but the kind of figure that we talked about was 10%. Surprisingly, that is not a million miles away from the experience to date, which is between 5% and 7%. The ultra-cautious reserving policy adopted by the company has meant that around £500 million has been held back. Just think what could have been achieved in the voluntary sector if even half of that had been released.
Nothing in the 2008 Act required this to happen, but the Act did require any reclaim fund to embed in its articles of association the transfer of money for good causes being subject to ensuring that it could meet repayment claims that are prudently anticipated. The issue is about the judgments that have been made for these prudently anticipated repayment claims.
I understand that the calculation of the reserves has been made using actuarial advice. With apologies in advance to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, I was once told that people became actuaries rather than chartered accountants because they found chartered accountancy too exciting. That may well account for the fact that an extreme version of prudence has been at work in this provision.
When the Dormant Assets Commission reported to the Government in 2017, it too was concerned about the amounts held back for both repayment claims and a capital reserve. Both appear to be ultra-prudent. So far as the repayment reserves are concerned, the Dormant Assets Commission recommended using commercial reinsurance against the tail risks driving the extent of this provision. Now that the company is firmly in the public sector, it makes little sense to carry on preparing accounts as though it were a free-standing organisation needing to guard against extreme possibilities for future payments.
The plain fact is that, if Reclaim Fund Ltd overdistributes its funds and runs out of money due to unexpectedly high repayment claims, the Treasury will have to step in. I will comment later on the problems I see with the power in Clause 27 to lend money to the company, but I believe that the crucial issue is that the Treasury now de facto stands behind the company. It should now be run from a financial management perspective in that light. It would not make sense to buy commercial reinsurance for the company’s tail risks because the public sector can bear such risks on its own balance sheet, which is why the Government rarely, if ever, buy commercial insurance.
My Amendment 53 could have tried to replicate an internal public sector reinsurance arrangement, but that felt rather artificial. Instead, it would give the Treasury power to guarantee the liabilities of the company, which it de facto does anyway now that it is in the public sector, and to tell the company how much of that guarantee can be taken into account when it makes its determinations under the 2008 Act about how much to anticipate on a prudent basis. It is now the Treasury’s responsibility to determine how much can be released for good causes. It must not hide behind an artificial construct of a limited liability company making its own judgments because, in the context of the public sector, the broad shoulders of the sector is bearing the risks anyway.
Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, basically links the power of the Treasury under Clause 27 to lend money to a reclaim fund when it calculates its provisions for liabilities. I do not think that that works in accounting purposes because, whether or not it is drawn down, the availability of a loan has no impact on the calculation of a liability. A loan is about funding—that is, cash flow—rather than the amount that is or may become payable.
In fact, I believe that the loan power in Clause 27 may be pretty useless. If the directors consider that they are unable to meet their liabilities as they fall due and there is any uncertainty about their financial forecasts, it may well be that the correct course of action for them is to place the company into liquidation. A loan would make sense only if the company had a strictly short-term need for cash but was confident that other funds would flow in from more dormant assets in the future to make up any hole in its accounts.
In any other case, liquidation is the obvious route because directors bear personal responsibility if they trade while insolvent. The Treasury would almost certainly want to avoid liquidation, with the possibility that repayment claims were not met, and would in practice have to recapitalise the company rather than lend money to it if a major loss emerged. So Clause 27 may well be a bit of an illusion, but it is certainly not the basis for reduced provisioning for repayment claims.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to live up to the caricature—I thank the noble Baroness—and will speak up for prudence. I find this a difficult issue. For me, it will be resolved only if we have access to the advice—I presume that it was made to the reclaim company rather than to the Government because this is a decision by the reclaim company—so I would be interested to know whether it is possible to see the advice that it has received.
It would also be useful to have a bit more information on the mechanics of how the reserving works. It is possible that, as the fund rolls forward, money that was required for reserving date one becomes available because of the way that the fund operates at date two and the reserve is more about when the money becomes available rather than an absolute bar on the availability of funds for charitable causes.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am definitely in the camp of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lady Bowles here.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that my understanding of the fund—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is not that this is sort of an endowment that is meant to subsist in perpetuity, essentially dispensing just part of its income to various charities every year. It looks back historically, and says: “Over years we’ve built up this huge block of dormant assets. Let’s do something with it, and quick.” The people receiving it know that they are not getting a future stream of cash. This is a way basically to say: “We’ve got a pool of dormant assets—money that’s not being used. Let’s just get that out into the community.” The way in which the fund is replenished is by the addition of new categories and classes of asset, not a continuous rate of people keeping up the level of forgotten bank accounts. That is an important message to get through.
I look at the retention rate of 40% against cash—it is not even a question of the value—as extreme prudence. This fund was created ahead of the financial crash. It has been through the financial crash and the Covid nightmare and has never needed anything even vaguely close to a 40% retention rate. You have to say that this has been tested in fire. I cannot imagine anybody looking and saying that 40% makes sense. I have no idea where the actuarial number comes from. It would be interesting to see the logic, but I suspect we would raise our eyebrows if we did.
As my noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made clear, we are now in a situation in which Reclaim Fund Ltd is a non-departmental public body. On Wednesday, I will speak to an amendment exploring whether any replacement or addition to Reclaim Fund Ltd would continue to have that status. I take the view that it should, but it now has the Government sitting behind it, for goodness’ sake: it is on books, and if it is on books then let us use it. In effect, we have a guarantee. I doubt that we would ever want to see the retention rate drop to the level where we thought that there was any serious probability that it would have to tap into that government guarantee—that is not what we are looking at—but that number and the 40% for cash are very wide apart. We now have a move by the fund into new classes of asset. I dread to think what retention rate it thinks will be necessary for that. We could easily be looking at 80% or 90% retention rates, which are absolutely pointless.
The purpose of the whole dormant asset concept is to take money that is sitting in pots not being used and get it out there where it can do good. I have one question. Since there is a huge pool of cash sitting somewhere under the auspices of Reclaim Fund Ltd, what is happening to it? Where is it sitting, who is getting fees, who is getting commissions, who is being paid to manage it? It may be my inadequacy in trying to read the accounts, since the only ones I have been able to get have been from Companies House, but I cannot work that out. Can the Minister inform us?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this useful set of amendments will help us to tease out the relationship between Reclaim Fund Ltd, Parliament, the Treasury, and the Government. My probing amendment is in a slightly different direction from those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Noakes, but they sit comfortably next to each other.
I want to understand what the oversight mechanism is and what will be available to Parliament in the event of Reclaim Fund Ltd requiring money from the Treasury. We have heard that this will never happen, which I am sure is quite right—with the reserve level set at 40% it is extremely unlikely—but I too believe in prudence in the management of funds, and I would like to understand what oversight Parliament will be given. We need a position where we can discuss and debate how it is working. Will that be through some kind of annual report to Parliament? Would oversight by Parliament be triggered in the circumstances of a particular use of funds? Can we perhaps see a situation where there is an annual debate about Reclaim Fund Ltd and how the money has been distributed so that we could test whether the 40% reserve is right?
Parliament needs to be in a stronger position here. These amendments take us in that general direction, particularly the clever one tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which would put the Treasury in the hot seat and ensure that we have a level of accountability enabling a regular look at how Reclaim Fund Ltd operates. I am looking forward to the Minister giving us not only some assurance but a guarantee that we will be able to see how the mechanism is working through a regular oversight session.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I will respond to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about how Reclaim Fund Ltd invests its assets. The reserves are a mix between cash held at the Bank of England and an externally managed bond portfolio managed by Goldman Sachs asset management. All the assets are held to maturity. The portfolio is not actively traded to save on management fees and the portfolio follows environmental, social and governance principles. I hope that this comforts her or otherwise regarding the fund’s approach.
I turn now to the amendments. Amendments 51, 52 and 53 relate to Clause 27 of the Bill. These amendments seek to understand the oversight that Parliament will have over any loan that the Treasury provides to RFL, and intend to allow RFL to take into account the loan when considering its reserving policy. I will address the amendments together.
In recognition of RFL’s establishment as a Treasury non-departmental public body, the Bill introduces a new provision to provide that, in the event that an authorised reclaim fund is, or looks likely to be, unable to meet its reclaim liabilities, the Treasury would provide a loan to cover these liabilities.
On Amendment 52, from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, the Government agree that Parliament should have oversight of the Treasury loan. Parliament will already be sighted in respect of the loans made from the Treasury by virtue of this being recorded in its annual reports and accounts, which are laid before Parliament on a yearly basis. The terms and conditions of the loan will be set in line with usual Treasury practice, as set out in Managing Public Money. It would not be usual practice to provide the full terms of the loan, which may contain commercially sensitive information. Further transparency to Parliament is provided in the reclaim fund’s annual report and accounts, which, as we discussed earlier, are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
Amendments 51 and 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and my noble friend Lady Noakes respectively, seek to understand the impact on RFL of a potential Treasury loan when setting its reserving policy. I will respond, first, by summarising the particular features that govern RFL’s reserving policy, and then turn to the implications on these of the Treasury loan. While the Government agree that as many dormant funds as possible should be channelled to good causes, we also fully recognise that the decision on how much money should be retained to meet reclaims should sit with RFL and not the Government. The RFL board is responsible for overseeing the process for changing the level of reserves, and RFL has confirmed that this is regularly revisited by the board.
I met recently with RFL. Following that meeting, I am satisfied that it follows diligent processes with respect to its reserving policy, which is based on an analysis of the relevant risk factors, actuarial modelling using both internal and independent actuarial advice, and Financial Conduct Authority guidance. This ensures that RFL can achieve its primary objective of meeting reclaims from owners at any time in the future. The fundamental principle that underpins RFL’s current approach to its reserving rates and investing policy is that it is required to meet reclaims in perpetuity. As your Lordships well understand, that makes it very different from, say, an insurance company. Therefore, it has to plan both for any normal trends in the reclaim experience and for any future stress scenarios that may occur, and model those accordingly.
Examples of such stress scenarios include developments in artificial intelligence that help to reunite more customers with their lost assets and, as we discussed in an earlier amendment, future changes in government data access, which could affect participant’s tracing efforts. Any stress scenario could result in a sudden increase in reclaims, and a combination of these scenarios would, of course, have a significant impact on RFL’s reserves. This is reflected in RFL’s regulatory permission and activities under which it is authorised to operate, with the purpose of ensuring that RFL has adequate financial resources to meet its ongoing reclaim obligations without placing it into undue financial distress or business failure.
While I recognise your Lordships’ interest in the current level of reclaim rates compared with money reserved, RFL has informed me that the cumulative reclaim rate is increasing and looks set to increase further in future years. RFL has reviewed and will continue to review its reserving policy regularly, using both internal and independent actuarial advice and modelling, to ensure that it is appropriately prudent and will continue to release as much money as responsibly possible to good causes across the UK, while retaining sufficient funds to meet reclaims. RFL’s remit is expanding to include previously unheld asset classes. I therefore understand why RFL has chosen not to amend its reserving policy at this time, although that decision remains solely with the company.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has asked to speak after the Minister.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I hear what my noble friend the Minister has said—that she was speaking to my amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, which both rely on the loans to reduce the amount of reserving. That is not what my amendment said at all. Mine was based on more explicitly recognising that the Treasury de facto now stands behind the company and that anything else is a complete fiction.
My noble friend talked about industry needing confidence in the scheme being independent of government. Frankly, the whole world has changed: the Treasury now owns 100% of the capital and it has been reclassified as public sector. The fact of life is that this is a public body and its “separate legal entity” nature is just a fiction.
If the Treasury wanted to release more for good causes, it could. That is at the heart of the issue; anything else is some form of dissembling. So I personally am not satisfied with the Minister’s response today. I do not think meeting the chief executive of the Reclaim Fund Ltd will get us any closer to the heart of the matter. The issue is: why will the Treasury not step up to the plate and recognise that it now carries responsibility for the amounts released, and that in public sector terms there is no good reason to withhold significant sums for tail risk?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I accept that I am not going to convince my noble friend this afternoon. Although she may see the fact that Reclaim Fund Ltd is a separate legal entity regulated by the FCA as a fiction, I respectfully disagree. She will decide whether she wishes to meet those from Reclaim Fund Ltd. The reason I felt that it might be helpful is that it may clarify to what extent the current level of reserving is “excessive”, as it was described in the debate this afternoon.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate; it has brought forward shared concerns and different ways of expressing much the same thing. The way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, explained it has been very informative, in particular the comparison with the original suggestion that maybe you need a 10% reserve and that that approach is the reality. Although I expressed it in a different way—I am sure that her amendment is probably crafted better than mine—we share the view about the tail risk and the role of government meaning that you do not have to provide for that in the ultra-cautious way. This also reflects my noble friend Lady Kramer’s comments that it is not being run as an endowment whereby you have to hang on to money. However, I suppose you can argue that there is a perpetual risk because there is an in-perpetuity claim.
It has been interesting to hear the Minister outline some of the concerns about AI tracing and using government data. If the 40% level will be retained as new assets come along, maybe I am not quite so alarmed. I shared the fear of my noble friend Lady Kramer that when these new assets came in, it was going to shoot back up to 60% or beyond.
We have this strange arrangement whereby limited liability companies that are on the public books but have to run under the Companies Act have the possibility of going into liquidation, which is how the directors can protect themselves, but the fact is that the Government will have to pick up the tab. It seems a bit wrong, somehow, not to use what is, in effect, a de facto “extreme circumstance” reinsurance provision that will be triggered come what may. We have to reflect the reality of that, and it is probably rather an excuse to say, “We will have to have it at arm’s length from the Treasury so that it is not interfering in the way the funds will be used.” We will get on to that when we begin to talk about additionality and some of the ways that the money has been deployed.
It may be interesting to have a bit more information on the figures; there are noble Lords who can get their heads around some of this. I am open to having more information and Parliament needs to see this level of it, but I am not entirely certain that I am satisfied at this point—particularly as the section regarding the loan turned out to be really rather meaningless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, outlined. We need some kind of explanation and reassurance either that that is not the case or that it can be made into something meaningful. Otherwise, what is the point of it being there?
This has been a very useful debate, which will continue. I too may consider returning to it on Report. I feel I know more—I have had a little comfort but maybe not yet enough—but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing and to wear face coverings while in the Chamber except when speaking. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Female Offender Strategy
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress towards the implementation of the Female Offender Strategy, published on 27 June 2018; and what plans they have, if any, to revise the timetable for its implementation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Female Offender Strategy launched an ambitious work programme to improve the outcomes for female offenders, which will take several years to deliver. However, three years on, we are making good progress. Our achievements include a new women’s policy framework, new training for staff working with women, improvements to pre-sentence reports and the implementation of the recommendations in the review on family ties by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Furthermore, we have invested £7 million in funding for women’s services across England and Wales.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
I thank the Minister for her Answer. The concordat published in January urged:
“Co-signatories to assist local organisations … with work to improve outcomes for women”.
First, can the Minister help to get work going by joining up these organisations, by publishing contact details for the relevant departments? Secondly, only 17 recommendations from the review for women by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, have been implemented. When will we see an update on progress?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the concordat was between government departments and all departments have joined up to it. Locally it is more difficult, but the important part of delivering good joined-up services—both to stop women entering as offenders and to help them when they come out of prison, if they are so unlucky as to go to prison—is that work needs to be done locally, with local concordats and partnerships.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on the issue of joined-up government, and as Rory Stewart understood, at the heart of the strategy is a recommendation for three cross-government implementation groups to address the complex needs of vulnerable prisoners. One was set up in June 2018 but quietly stood down in 2019. How many of the three recommended groups are in existence today? If none, is it any wonder that the Prison Reform Trust found that only 17 of the 65 recommendations have been fully implemented?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I do not have the answer to the noble Lord’s question, but I can say that there are a number of groups in government working all the time on early intervention and prevention and with women in custody, and they are delivering for those women.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
A key aim of the Female Offender Strategy was to reduce women’s prison places, yet there has been a government announcement recently saying that they are going to increase prison places by 500. Are the Government planning for failure?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, my Lords, the Government are not planning for failure. We are planning to deliver part of the strategy for women offenders, which is to update the women’s estate. This investment in the estate will allow for single cells and for an estate which can deliver for women offenders, and possibly for their children to help them keep their family ties.
Baroness Fall (Con) [V]
My Lords, the vast majority of women in prison today are held for non-violent offences and on short sentences; 60% of them have experienced domestic abuse; and many of these women go on to reoffend—a destructive and costly cycle. Does the Minister agree that we should seek to build a support structure around these vulnerable women and that investing in women’s centres is a good start? Will she inform the House on the progress made to pilot five residential women’s centres, as set out in the Government’s Female Offender Strategy, which I very much welcomed at the time?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. We need to put a whole system around each of our female offenders, or women who are likely to become offenders. As far as the women’s centres are concerned, we have said that the first centre will be in south Wales and we are working closely with all our partners, including the Welsh Government, to identify a suitable site. Once we have found it, we will identify others across England. While we have been looking for the site, we have also been engaged with many voluntary and statutory agencies, so that we get the women’s lived experience and make sure that the centres are what the women need.
Lord German (LD)
A key commitment in the Female Offender Strategy was to improve through-the-gate services for offenders, but the recent announcement of £6 million for these services for offenders includes just one women’s prison. These are crucial services helping to put an end to the “no job, no home, no hope” picture we often see. Having increased the women’s prison estate by 500 places, when will the Government provide the necessary funding to carry out their commitment to improving these vital services and break this terrible reoffending cycle?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Investing in the women’s custodial estate will improve conditions for female prisoners through the modern gender-specific and trauma-informed design—that is important. We hope that better conditions will support rehabilitation, ensuring that women are held in appropriate, decent and safe accommodation—but also accommodation, as I have said before, with inclusive rooms to support overnight stays for mothers and their children, which we know is important to those offenders.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, is it now government policy that the interests of a male prisoner who wishes to be housed on the female estate should, in making a decision on that request, have exactly the same weight as the interests of each individual female prisoner, with whom they will be housed?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service ensures that all transgender individuals are managed safely, with their rights properly respected and in accordance with the law. Decisions on where individuals are located within the prison estate are made following assessments of all the known risks posed to and by the individual. This includes consideration of their current behaviour and previous offending history, to achieve an outcome that balances risks and promotes safety.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
Would it not be better for women addicted to drink or drugs who commit non-violent offences to go to a residential rehabilitation centre under a probation order, rather than to prison?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I agree with the noble and learned Baroness. The new probation service, which is a unified service nationally and starts at the end of this week, is the way that we can look much more seriously at in-community sentences for the offenders to whom she refers.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the recent reports of women in prison, particularly in the last year, send a message of despair and cruelty, of which this country should be ashamed. For example, in women’s prisons there has been a big increase in self-harm during the pandemic. There is a marked difference between the sexes: 3,557 incidents for every 1,000 women prisoners in a 12-month period, compared with 595 for the same number of male prisoners. Does the Minister believe that the misery and inappropriateness of incarcerating so many women will be alleviated by spending £100 million on 500 more prison places, or does she believe that that investment might be better spent keeping women out of prison and supporting vital community services, which are receiving a paltry £2 million, when they are released?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we need to do both. We recognise that the level of self-harm in the women’s estate is too high and we are determined to reduce it. Part of doing that will be to update the women’s estate. But we also want, through the new probation service, to increase the amount of community services, working with the voluntary sector to stop women going into the system and, when they are there, to support them not to reoffend.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
What steps have the Government taken to introduce gender-specific sentencing guidelines to encourage judges and magistrates to approach sentencing women from a completely different starting point from that for men? Does the Minister agree that equal sentencing guidelines for men and women do not result in equality of outcome, having regard to the specific problems that women have to deal with while incarcerated and afterwards?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I agree that we should be working with the courts system to ensure that judges and magistrates understand the particular issues for women and issue sentences accordingly.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and we come to the second Oral Question.
Universities: Compulsory Redundancies
Viscount Hanworth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) threats of compulsory redundancies in the university sector, and (2) the potential impact of any such redundancies on teaching and research.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw attention to my association with the University of Leicester, which is currently enacting a spate of compulsory redundancies among its academic staff.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, higher education providers are independent institutions, responsible for their own staffing issues, including how they structure themselves to deliver research and teaching priorities. Where it is necessary to reshape their activities, it is important that universities carefully consider the impact of job losses on staff and students and on the overall sustainability of teaching and research in this country. The Office for Students requires English higher education providers to maintain academic quality and standards.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
The Government have led universities to compete for students by embarking on capital expenditures to create attractive amenities. To address the resulting financial difficulties, they have begun to sack their academic staff at a time when large numbers of European nationals are leaving academic posts as a consequence of Brexit. The long periods of training, the job insecurities and the penurious salaries are preventing native British people joining the academic profession. This will lead to the demise of our university sector. What remedies, if any, do the Government propose?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we are all proud of our world-leading higher education sector, which is a tribute to those who work in it and have done over many years. We have four of the world’s top 10 universities and 17 of the top 100. Many universities are able to combine academic excellence with commercial success, so I do not quite recognise the dichotomy that the noble Viscount paints. However, we recognise the challenges of the past year and a half, during the pandemic, which is why, alongside access to the business support schemes available to all businesses, we brought forward more than £2 billion of tuition fee payments, provided £280 million of grant funding for research and established a loan scheme to cover up to 80% of universities’ income losses from international students for the current academic year.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration of interests, particularly as a teacher at the University of Buckingham. The proximate cause of these redundancies is a fall in income. Universities depend not just on fees but on rent and income from retail, bars and so on. Will my noble friend the Minister join me in congratulating those universities that have facilitated a safe return to in-person tuition? Will he also join me in urging particularly those in the college lecturers’ union who are resisting a return to campus to drop their opposition—in their own interest if not in that of the students?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is right: it is important for universities to meet in person, and staff and students have shown themselves to be very flexible and adaptable during the challenging circumstances of the last year and a half. All students have been eligible to return to in-person teaching since 17 May, and we have encouraged universities to bring that about. How best to manage the return of face-to-face teaching is up to universities themselves, but all students are now eligible to receive their vaccination, and we encourage them to take that up to support their return to campuses, particularly as the autumn term approaches.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to the scale of this problem. My noble friend mentioned the University of Leicester, where, I understand, 26 academic redundancies are planned, as is the cessation of research in pure mathematics. I understand that 47 are to be made redundant at the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences at the University of Liverpool, 24 are to be made redundant at Aston University—along with the ending of courses in international business, modern languages, history and politics and English literature—and 11 are to be made redundant at the University of Hull, alongside the closure of the modern languages department. Surely the Minister ought to do more to intervene to end this unfolding cost-cutting catastrophe, which is damaging the morale and careers of students and staff, undermining research and destroying the enviable reputation of our universities?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, higher education providers are independent institutions responsible for their own decisions on staffing. Where it is necessary to reshape their activities, it is important that they carefully consider the impact of job losses on staff and students and on the overall sustainability of teaching and research. The Office for Students requires English HE providers to maintain academic quality and standards, and we have intervened by providing support to institutions during the past year and a half, in light of the Covid pandemic, as I outlined in response to the noble Viscount.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, redundancies may well be targeted at minority disciplines—yet these are very often highly critical to research, national security, well-being and knowledge. Can the Minister assure us that we shall not lose pure maths, as the noble Lord has just identified; modern languages, especially minority ones; and obscure arts and sciences, which may turn out to be vital? What assurances have universities given that they will not make redundancies in minority disciplines unless they are available at other universities?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I can only repeat that the decisions are for universities themselves, as autonomous and independent institutions. However, we have provided support: as well as that which I outlined earlier, we have provided funding through the Sustaining University Research Expertise fund, and the Government have committed to spending 2.4% of GDP on R&D by 2027—so we recognise the importance of the broad range of subjects that the noble Baroness outlined.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister worried that the University of Leicester is closing down its research in pure maths—if only because STEM can hardly flourish without fundamental maths? More broadly, is there a risk that the combined effect of the pandemic and government cuts to research funding since Brexit might lead more universities to slash good research and pivot instead to taught courses that they think will bring in more money?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I have just mentioned, the Government are seeking to increase R&D funding to 2.4% of GDP by 2027, and the decisions for the University of Leicester are for it to make. In light of the pandemic, we have provided the help that I have outlined to the University of Leicester and institutions across the country.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we have a more strategic problem here: a universities business model that depends on, and is very sensitive to, overseas students, foreign research funding—not least from China—and the management of the rent rolls for the accommodation of students staying and studying away from home. Post Covid and post Brexit, all that seems to be in question. Is it not time that we had a strategic review of what our universities are capable of doing and what they are there to achieve?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we are very proud of the attractiveness of UK higher education institutions to international students. We have an international students strategy that seeks to build on the successes of the past, informed by Sir Steve Smith, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Exeter. The financial stability of our world-leading university base has been a key aspect considered in all recent spending reviews. Foreign tuition and research income from outside the EU account for 15% and 1% of the total income of higher education institutions overall, so, while China may be an important contributor to non-EU foreign income, it would be wrong to characterise the sector as highly dependent on that country alone.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sorry to add to the litany of academic loss, but I am sure that the Minister is aware of the plans to end the undergraduate teaching of archaeology at the University of Sheffield. This was ranked 39th in the world in the 2021 QS rankings. It has received expressions of support from around the world—including, just today, from Greece. Does the Minister agree that the study of archaeology is crucial to our understanding of the present and that it is crucial for us to maintain academic centres of excellence? Will the Government reconsider their plan to slash funding for the study of archaeology?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I know that the noble Baroness’s noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is an archaeology graduate. As a history graduate myself, I certainly recognise the importance of the study of the past. The Government have been providing help to institutions through the ways that I have outlined a number of times and through the SURE fund for research—so we are assisting universities, particularly in light of the challenging circumstances of the past few months.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have a dual funding system, and, while the Minister is right to say that the institutions are notionally independent, the truth is that they can do only what they are funded for, in what has effectively become a market economy. Have the Government considered one part of the dual funding system—the payments that will need to be made to support the redundancies and closures in relation to research—and has the Minister talked to UKRI about that? In respect of the AHRC, can the Minister confirm that the funding for the important creative clusters programme is secure?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
During the last year, we provided support through the SURE fund to address the impact of the Covid pandemic. It will continue to be an important consideration in the next spending review and in our plans significantly to boost R&D funding. Through the Office for Students, we continue to monitor the financial stability of research in higher education, which is an important factor in the consideration of the balance of the dual funding that the noble Lord referred to.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Education: Recovery Package and Catch-up Programme
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woolley of Woodford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take (1) to narrow attainment gaps, and (2) to address racial inequalities, as part of their education recovery package and catch-up programme.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper, and I highlight my interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, this Government are taking steps to level up educational outcomes for all pupils, regardless of race, class or background. The support that we are providing includes £2.5 billion of pupil premium funding this year, £220 million for the holiday activities and food programme and £400 million for internet access and laptops. We have also committed over £3 billion to help children catch up on lost education.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for that response, but is she aware that some headteachers feel forced to use the education recovery funds not for that purpose but to plug serious financial gaps? Given that this money is supposed to target the most vulnerable children in our society, are there ring-fenced, targeted funds for Caribbean, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Gypsy and Roma children?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the catch-up funding and the pupil premium funding are aimed at all disadvantaged children regardless of their racial or regional presence in the UK. On the overall funding package, an extra £2.6 billion last year and £2.2 billion this year went into the core schools budget. If the noble Lord wishes to give me the names of the institutions concerned which are struggling, we can direct them to the plethora of resources available from the department to ensure that schools can get the best deal available for their money, such as the free teacher vacancy service and the risk protection arrangement, which many schools are now using as their insurance policy.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, we know that all adolescents across the UK, regardless of their ethnicity, are better equipped for success and flourishing later in life when well educated, yet, prior to the pandemic, black Caribbean and white/black Caribbean students numbered double the national average for school exclusions. Recent UCAS research revealed that a third of students in schools and half of students in colleges were not told about apprenticeships. What steps are the Government taking to address disproportionate school exclusions as well as promote apprenticeships as an alternative pathway for students from ethnic minorities?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the diversity champions network is aimed specifically at making sure that black and minority-ethnic young people are aware of apprenticeship opportunities. The Government accepted the recommendations of the Timpson review in relation to exclusions and we are looking to enact them. On the temporary exclusion rate, there is some good news in that the rate for black Caribbean students has slightly decreased.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
Given that the Government seem to have rejected much of the Sewell racism report, including the one positive recommendation of extending substantially the school day—barring a paltry, 30-minute possible extension—to allow exactly the catch-up of hours that children need to advance their education, how else can the Government require that the school estate, which is a public asset, be put to maximum effect over the summer months and into the autumn? How can they ensure that the publicly funded asset of teacher knowledge is best deployed to advance children’s learning to catch up more effectively?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, there will be a short consultation on the element of the recovery package relating to extending the school day because that has an impact on the teaching workforce. In relation to those eligible for free school meals, it is white working-class children who have the lowest Progress 8 measure for their achievement, but many holiday activity and food programme initiatives take place on school premises and specific guidance is given to schools about they can best use their school estate.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as part of the education recovery package, what work is ongoing between central government and the devolved Administrations to reduce racial inequalities, including in respect of the digital divide, thus contributing to the levelling-up agenda, enhancing educational opportunities for all our children and improving our economy and society in the long run?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Government will produce a White Paper later this year to outline the national plan for levelling up. There are regular meetings between the Secretary of State for Education and his counterparts, as well as at official level between the department and the devolved Administrations.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, for his very relevant Question. My mentor on educational issues is Liz Wolverson OBE, chief executive of the London Diocesan Board for Schools Academies Trust. She has rescued 10 failing schools in inner London, so she speaks with vast experience. Will the Minister examine her advice? If we want to help less privileged children who have suffered during lockdown, using trained instructors after school to deliver arts, sport, drama, singing, et cetera, which more privileged children have had access to, will make a real contribution to levelling up.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I join the noble Lord in praising the activity of that multi-academy trust. We have seen hundreds of schools join multi-academy trusts and improve their performance. The development of the National Tutoring Programme— in which I believe we have invested £539 million—is now school led. It will enable schools to spend that money on existing tutors and a wider range of subjects, including arts and other subjects that are not currently available through the tuition partners stream of the National Tutoring Programme.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, are the Government valuing children in the same way as the United States and other European countries such as the Netherlands, which are investing far more in their children and young people through their Covid recovery plans—reported to be £1,600 and £2,500 a head respectively compared to the equivalent £22 per child that primary schools will receive from the Government’s education recovery plan? Are BAME children and those already historically disadvantaged bearing the brunt of the pandemic through this gross lack of investment?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in relation to BAME children, when the statistics are broken down it is clear that one has to look very carefully within that cohort. White Irish Traveller families and Gypsy and Roma families are very much at the bottom of achievement levels, with Asian and particularly British-Chinese students outperforming every other group. One has to look carefully within that group, but that is not to say that there are not some issues there, particularly for black Caribbean children and for boys. It is not appropriate to do a per-pupil comparison, because significant parts of the Government’s recovery package are not on a per-pupil basis. For instance, £200 million has been made available to secondary schools to run summer schools only for year 6 pupils going into year 7. Those comparisons are not possible between jurisdictions.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, while recognising the Government’s commitment to addressing racial equalities, can I ask my noble friend the Minister, who has just mentioned Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, what we are doing to support youngsters from those communities, who have the poorest life chances? What are they doing to support the recruitment of members of minority communities to school governing bodies?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, there are two organisations that the Government contract with to deliver new governors, Academy Ambassadors and the National Governance Association. We have set them specific targets which they have both exceeded in relation to recruitment from those communities. The Government are announcing—or have announced; I shall double-check that—the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller strategy, but my noble friend is correct that those groups have the highest prevalence for free school meals and some of the lowest educational attainment. We need to act to help change that.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, this Wednesday is Thank a Teacher Day, an event established in 1998 by my noble friend Lord Puttnam to celebrate and recognise excellence in education. It is a chance for children and families to thank the inspirational staff who change lives through their hard work. All the evidence shows that if we want to make the most difference to children’s life chances and close the attainment gap, investing in teaching is key. The influence of a good teacher lasts a lifetime, so why have the Government said nothing about the workforce that will deliver the additional education catch-up support for children’s pandemic recovery?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may correct something I said earlier to save me writing a letter in that regard: we have invested £579 million in the school-led programme.
The noble Baroness is right; it is what the evidence shows, and that is why in the third tranche of the recovery package we are investing £253 million in new funding for half a million teachers. Improving the early career framework for teachers by giving them two years’ professional development is an important professionalisation of the workforce. We are aiming towards that £30,000 starting salary as well.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
The Government state that the catch-up funding is based on evidence. What is that evidence and how will the Government ensure that it addresses racial inequality and narrows attainment gaps?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the evidence base on which the recovery package is based is research, particularly from the Education Endowment Foundation, and the quality of teaching, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, outlined, is one of the key factors. Obviously, we have evidence as well that small-group or one-on-one tutoring is a key vehicle to help children catch up and improve. That is why £1.5 billion will go into tutoring over the next two to three academic years. That is the evidence base. We are collecting the Renaissance research on lost education, but that is geographical, not by gender or racial groups.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Children: Care Homes
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use of unregulated care homes for children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, we have recently announced vital reforms for the use of unregulated provision to ensure that children in care and care leavers have access to high-quality accommodation and support that meets their needs and keeps them safe. This includes banning the practice of placing under-16s in this provision from September. We are now consulting on national standards and Ofsted regulation for unregulated provision for looked-after children and care leavers aged 16 and 17.
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank the Minister for her reply. She will know that there were 1,860 reports of abuse against children living in unregistered care homes. This included physical abuse, sexual abuse, trafficking, grooming and the exploitation of young people with learning difficulties and mental health problems. Does the Minister agree that this is a disgrace? Will she take immediate steps to ensure that every child is safeguarded? We also see that, increasingly, these children are not attending school. Will she work with local authorities to ensure that every child goes to school?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it is clear that the local authority has the primary statutory duty to safeguard children. More than 80% of our children’s homes are good or outstanding in Ofsted terms, but the noble Lord is correct. Schools are a vital part of the system and are the second largest reporter to children’s social care, and of course they should be keeping clear attendance figures to know where those children are.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister say a little more about the decision for the new system not to proceed with formal police liaison with local authorities for out-of-area care? There are so many people involved in care, and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, along with the College of Policing, quite clearly recommends that local authorities notify the relevant police force in an out-of-area placement. I just do not understand it. The explanation that the Government give in their document about removing the formal liaison with the police is not very satisfactory. Will she say a little more about that government decision?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, there is guidance for local authorities when they are going to place a child in out-of-area care. A placement should always be governed by what is the most appropriate provision for the young person. Many of the facilities in which children are placed, such as Centrepoint and St Basils, are high-quality provision. I will write to the noble Lord in regard to the more specific question he asked about notifying the police authority to which the young person has been moved.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, the government proposals for a new regulatory and inspection regime using national minimum standards for 16 and 17 year-olds in unregulated settings intentionally omit any guarantee of care, causing many in the sector to express concern that the proposals establish a dangerous precedent, whereby older children notionally in care receive only a lower level of support. It seems to go against other recent welcome policy developments to extend aspects of care, such as “staying put” and “staying close”. Will the Minister explain this seeming contradiction in policy?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, there is no contradiction in policy here. The local authority’s duty is to place young people of 16 and 17 in the most appropriate accommodation, obviously taking into account their best interests. There are certain individual circumstances that mean that the best placement for a young person—such as a 16 or 17 year-old unaccompanied asylum-seeking child who has perhaps been out of any home or family environment for years—might be in semi-supported accommodation. It is important that there are national standards that Ofsted will inspect against for that type of provision.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Independent Schools Association. What progress has been made by the excellent schemes to provide places in both state and independent boarding schools for children in care who would be suited to them and benefit from them—which not all children in care would? Should not local authorities consider this option for their children in care with a completely open mind? How does the average annual cost of a place in a children’s home compare with that in a boarding school?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. Through the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation charity, the Government are currently running regional pilots in the south-west, the north-east and London, to try to ensure that, where it is in the best interests of the child and the most appropriate placement is in one of those boarding schools, that is the placement. That is being done with a view to, after looking at the regional pilots, making it national.
Lord Laming (CB) [V]
My Lords, do the Government now regret the pressure that they placed on local authorities to outsource their services, as they call it, thereby placing into the hands of independent providers the powers both to choose the children to be offered a service and to set the charges that they demand? Does the Minister accept that placements in unregulated accommodation have been just one result of this policy?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as I have outlined, there are many excellent providers in this sector, and it is not fair to tar everybody with the same brush when there are a minority of situations in which, of course, we need to act. The noble Lord is correct: a review is currently under way by the Competition and Markets Authority to look at the market in this space, but many of those providers provide a good or outstanding service.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
Is my noble friend aware that Ofsted stopped doing routine inspections in March 2020? Therefore, only 29 homes were inspected in the next nearly six months. Are discussions being held with Ofsted to ensure that all those unregulated homes are inspected regularly?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the consultation closes on 19 July. Once we have national standards, it is envisaged that Ofsted will inspect this provision as well. As the noble Lord outlined, Ofsted has still been inspecting on a risk base, when it is alerted to problems in children’s homes—but it is getting back to all its routine inspections now.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I welcome my noble friend’s announcement that there will be no future referrals to unregulated providers. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the National Association of Child Contact Centres and the co-chair of the APPG on Child Contact Centres. Will my noble friend ensure that all child contact centres and organisations that offer child contact services are accredited in accordance with national standards for safeguarding to ensure that no child can be referred to an unregulated and unprovided-for child contact centre in future?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I appreciate my noble friend’s concern, but I will have to write to her as I believe that might be a matter for the Home Office or the MoJ, if there is any regulatory regime around child contact centres, which I believe will be for separated parents.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, it was deeply disappointing to see that the first report, published last week, of the MacAlister review of children’s social care, did not champion 16 and 17 year-olds in care, instead following the position of Ministers on unregistered homes. With the Government attempting to defend the indefensible by citing the fact that children aged 16 can marry or enter civil partnerships with parental consent, the Ministry of Justice has announced that it is going to raise the legal minimum age for marriage because, as it says, of the need to protect vulnerable children. Will the Minister finally accept the need to ensure that all under 18s receive care where they live, because all children in care are by definition extremely vulnerable?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Department for Education has liaised closely with the Ministry of Justice on this policy. A number of 16 and 17 year-olds are remanded with very strict bail conditions pending trial. In those circumstances, there can be difficulties in placing those 16 and 17 year-olds in a family environment. So it is very clear that in that small number of cases, for those reasons—and also taking into account the best interests of that alleged offender—they may be placed in that type of accommodation. The Government are not defending the indefensible, but in certain circumstances, particularly with the risks that those young people may, unfortunately, pose to other children if placed in a children’s home or a family, we need to make sure that that type of accommodation meets national standards and is inspected but is available for that type of situation.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
European Football Championships: Travel
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to exempt from quarantine restrictions (1) UEFA and FIFA officials, and (2) associated visitors, travelling to the United Kingdom for the final of the European football championships.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are proud that the UK is hosting 12 Euro 2020 matches, including both semi-finals and the final at Wembley. We already permit certain officials and accredited guests to enter the UK for these matches under the elite sport exemption. We will continue to keep the scope of these exemptions under review, and are working closely with the FA and UEFA to ensure that these Euro 2020 matches take place successfully. At all times in this pandemic, public health remains our priority.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to hear the Minister’s reassurance on that count. However, given the Government’s track record—travel from India having seeded the Delta variant and Cornwall spiking 2,400% after the G7 summit—does she accept that the public are rightly concerned that their right to life and livelihoods might again be at risk due to the possible importation of what we might call the UEFA variant if the exemptions highlighted in the media go ahead? Will the Government publish an impact assessment so that we can see on what basis this potentially risky and unfair decision has been taken?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I stress that no decision has yet been taken, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for acknowledging that public safety remains our top priority, including the safe delivery of Euro 2020. We have testing protocols and international restrictions in place to help ensure that this tournament can take place successfully and safely.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I know from past bids to hold major football tournaments that the organisers stipulate their requirements in detail, including all aspects of attendance. The United Kingdom could decline but we know that the tournament would simply go elsewhere, which is not attractive or generally to be recommended. While some people may be irate about these facts, I have two questions. First, on the assumption that we may yet admit UEFA guests, what specific health safety checks would be insisted on to ensure the safety of the people of the United Kingdom? Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly for national economic life and the future of jobs in this country, will the Government make specific arrangements to ensure that short-term visits from key strategic businesses and investors could also proceed where they are safe, given that vital activity is currently impeded by quarantine arrangements that are more restrictive than in any competitor nation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his reflections and questions. The health restrictions that could be imposed if we reached an agreement with UEFA would build on the existing elite sport exemptions that, I think, are well understood by the public and whose rationale is well accepted, including capacity, testing, isolation and staying in bubbles. As for the wider opening up of the economy that he spoke about, he knows that we are working towards stage 4 of the road map in that regard.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister tell us how many of the delegates coming here have been fully vaccinated? Surely that is a fact that we should know before we make any other decisions.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I stress again that no final decisions have been taken. Our approach is to restrict any extension to the smallest possible group of people who are deemed critical for staging the tournament successfully. I am not aware that we will publish the vaccination status, but we will ensure that any visit is a safe one.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that allowing 250 VIPs to come into the country without quarantine sends the wrong message to the general public: that quarantine is not important, and that there is one rule for them and one rule for people seen as more important?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord cites a figure that I do not recognise. The principle is that we are not exempting any VIPs or accredited guests from our restrictions. If it is agreed that they should enter the UK, they would be allowed to leave isolation only for official events and would be subject to a very strict code of conduct.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, if the Government are minded to waive quarantine restrictions to avoid the final and semi-finals being moved from the UK, are they looking at controls such as limiting the number of those exempted, where they can stay, what they can do once they are in the UK, and their departure after the final?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We are looking at all the elements that my noble friend mentioned, and our goal is that UEFA is able to meet the terms of its contractual agreements and that we are able to host a very successful and safe games.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, many thousands of fans have tickets for the games at Wembley. Business supply chains and workers have been preparing for them for a long time. Perhaps UEFA should remember that it was the passion of fans in this country in particular that saw off the threat of the European Super League. To repay the favour by removing games would be a pretty disgraceful betrayal. Many traders will use this as a first opportunity to open up. What considerations are the Government giving to supporting traders should these games end up being relocated? Furthermore, what thoughts have the Government had about the balance between fans and organiser sponsor interests, in the light of the threat of moving the final somewhere else? Can we have an update on this work as an aspect of the fan-led review?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, the fan-led review is separate from today’s topic of discussion. With regard to support for traders, the Government’s generous cross-economy package continues through to September, as he is also aware.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, on 18 June the Prime Minister said, in regard to this issue, that protecting public health was his priority. What public health data, therefore, do the Government have that indicates that up to 2,500 UEFA officials are less likely to catch and spread Covid-19 than ordinary football fans, who will have to quarantine?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord knows that the health status of those officials is unlikely to be different from that of anyone else. What is different is that those officials are exempted to enter the UK only as part of an elite sport bubble, unlike others.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, why is there such a disconnect between the Government’s rules for football and those for culture? Quite apart from the terrible problems facing travelling artists, having seen on television over the weekend the happy revellers at matches inside bars and pubs, the points that Barbara Keeley MP and I made in our letter from the APPG on Classical Music to Oliver Dowden last week are all the more germane. In other words, is it not utterly ridiculous that shouting, chanting and drinking fans can congregate and hug each other but a small, amateur, vaccinated and socially distanced choir cannot meet to rehearse?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I recognise the issues that the noble Lord raises; he is not alone in feeling concerned by some of the events that were broadcast over the weekend.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said about communal singing and the comparisons with football. The Minister mentioned that whoever comes in will be subject to a “strict code of conduct”. Will the Government make it absolutely clear what sanctions will be imposed on those who breach any of the rules associated with that code?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not familiar with the details of that, but I imagine it would be the responsibility of UEFA and the international football associations, since it would apply to non-UK citizens.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has elapsed.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I believe that 15 minutes are allowed for a Private Notice Question, so there is time for the final question.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel)
I am so sorry. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am thrown now, my Lords. Anyway, congratulations to Wales—it is the hope that kills you—and to the Scottish football fans for having a good time. On this cancelled “freedom day”, does the Minister understand that these apparent double standards and exemptions for the few, similar to those we saw at the G7 and Royal Ascot, are creating cynicism about whether policies are really based on evidence, not just among the protesters outside today but among the most lockdown-compliant citizens? Perhaps UEFA and FIFA saw the viral thread of tweets describing the risible conditions in an official quarantine hotel: for example, paltry amounts of food served at 9 pm and children and the elderly incarcerated and actually going hungry. Can the Minister assure the House that, rather than tightening up quarantine, the Government might look at lessening it for the many rather than just for the few?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Some of the wider issues to which the noble Baroness rightly alludes are part of our broader strategy for lifting lockdown progressively. Quarantining is obviously part of that. Our number one priority for these events is the public health safety of our citizens. The second is to be good hosts to the teams and VIPs coming to this country. To do this, we will build on our existing elite sport exemptions. Anyone allowed in will be subject to the same restrictions.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am glad that injury time allowed the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, to get her question in.
Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations, Tariff Quotas and Wine) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 May be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 15 June.
Environment Bill
Monday 21st June 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-II(a) Amendments for Committee (for Third Marshalled List) - (21 Jun 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in the order of request. The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in the group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking in the group.
Amendment 1
The Earl of Lindsay
“Environmental objectives
(1) The purpose of Part 1 is to provide a governance framework for enabling the environmental objectives to be met. (2) Within the framework of sustainable development, the environmental objectives referred to in section 1(1) are to achieve and maintain—(a) a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment,(b) an environment that supports human health and wellbeing for everyone, and(c) sustainable use of natural and physical resources.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to align the core elements of the governance framework (process for setting long-term targets, Environmental Improvement Plans and the Policy Statement on Environmental Principles) to a single objective.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I will speak also to Amendments 3, 54 and 74 in my name. The Environment Bill offers a unique opportunity to create a coherent long-term framework for the environment—a framework capable of motivating all sectors and all parts of society to plan, to commit to and to collaborate on improving the environment on which we and future generations depend. I therefore especially welcome the Bill seeking to address the core governance elements that will be needed for decades to come. This is a critical component. Clearly, business will have a key role to play in delivering the changes needed to meet our long-term environmental ambitions and our net-zero target. Unlocking private sector finance and investment will be essential, particularly given the pressures on the public purse.
Having engaged with business groups on how they can rise to the challenge, I have picked up a clear signal. The confidence and certainty that they need to invest in the future—our future—will depend on there being greater clarity and cohesion across the governance provisions set out in the Bill, particularly on the interplay between targets, interim targets and environmental improvement plans. The addition of guiding objectives to the setting of long-term environmental targets, and to bind the core governance elements together, along with an overarching purpose statement at the start of the Bill, would bring that greater level of clarity and cohesion to the governance provisions. That, in turn, would give businesses greater confidence to invest in achieving long-term targets; hence Amendments 1, 3, 54 and 74.
Amendment 1 proposes defining core environmental objective on the face of the Bill. Amendment 3 would ensure that the target-setting process is aligned with the core environmental objectives. Amendment 54 would align environmental improvement plans with these objectives, and Amendment 74 would, likewise, align the environmental principles with these objectives. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, I am a trustee of the Green Purposes Company that holds the green share in the Green Investment Bank, and I am a director of Aldustria Ltd.
We have recently had the G7 in the part of the world that I live in: Cornwall. Never mind the increase in Covid-19 in those areas since—other than that, it was a very successful bringing together of global leaders. I like to think that one of the reasons our Prime Minister chose Cornwall was because of its natural environment, its beauty and, for that weekend at least, its good weather. I ask the Committee to keep this to itself but the weather is not always quite like that in Cornwall, but it was on those two to three days, I am pleased to say.
Many visitors come to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly for their staycations because of that great environment but I have to tell the Committee that, on a local basis, biodiversity in that far south-west region is as on the brink as it is elsewhere. For instance, half our mammals are found in fewer places, three out of five of our butterflies are in decline, eight of our bumblebee species have disappeared over the last few years, and some 40% of our breeding birds are in decline. That is in an area that we think of as being beautiful in terms of its biodiversity and its natural heritage.
This is reflected nationally: in the UK we have failed to meet some 17 of our Aichi targets—the targets set 10 years ago at the Convention on Biological Diversity. Some 15% of our species are threatened with extinction; we have a reduced distribution of a quarter of our species, and four out of 10 are in decline. We saw in the Woodland Trust report that only 7% of our forests and woodlands are in good order. So, we have biodiversity as a crisis together with climate change. They are crises and they are emergencies. I think there are very few people who would dispute that at the moment.
One of the interesting things to come out recently, in fact in the last week, is a report —not just by the IPCC on the climate change side, but the IPBES on the UN biodiversity side—that says that these two crises are inextricably linked. One cannot be solved without the other; they are twin crises that are, in effect, Siamese twins as we would understand them. I will talk more about the biodiversity crisis—we are very aware of the climate change crisis. It is a crisis where we believe that we are entering the sixth extinction on the planet. The previous one was the dinosaurs, thought to be caused by an asteroid, but the sixth extinction that is happening at this time is uniquely, clearly and obviously the only one that is due to one species—homo sapiens.
Why is this important? It is not just about cuddly animals or health, welfare and being able to have access to the countryside and to nature. It is because we rely entirely on the ecosystem services that biodiversity affords us, be those pollination, healthy soil, clean water, clean seas or a whole panoply of ways that not just we as individuals but our economy survives. Again, in the south-west, this is certainly true of tourism, fisheries and agriculture, but it is true of industry generally and of our economic well-being. Because of that, I have brought this amendment forward.
It is a particularly auspicious time because this year we have not just COP 26 on climate change in Glasgow in November but COP 15 of the biodiversity convention in Kunming in October. These two important international conferences are coming together towards the end of this year, but, we hope, after this Bill squeezes through Royal Assent and becomes an Act, which we want to happen quickly. It is an ideal opportunity to illustrate to the world how the United Kingdom sees these crises as important and as inextricably combined emergencies, where we can show leadership.
Why this amendment and why in this Bill? First, if local authorities can blaze the trail in this area, our own Government and this Parliament should be able to do so as well. Some 230 local authorities have declared a climate change emergency. Around 15% have declared a biodiversity emergency. They include Bath, Bristol and Brighton, and they are across the political spectrum. A number of other local authorities have declared a combined emergency, including Cambridgeshire, Bournemouth, Windsor, Maidenhead, Brent and Ealing. I am sure all of us can point out those of our own political choice.
Another reason this is important is that, just as the Government have said, this is a landmark Bill. It is critical to how this country moves forward in terms of its environment and even broader issues. What better place is there for the Government to declare this double emergency?
Another important thing is that while there is awareness across this House of the biodiversity crisis, there is less awareness of it more broadly. Climate change is more obvious. This amendment gives an opportunity to give equality to those two issues—to give greater visibility to the biodiversity problem.
Lastly, this amendment gives us a real opportunity to give leadership in both COP 15 and COP 26. These emergencies exist. They are one and connected in so many ways. This gives the opportunity—better than any other way—to show that the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister, the Government and this Parliament give these emergencies the priority they deserve.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have set myself the target for Committee not to make the mistakes of other Committee stages by making mini Second Reading speeches before I get to the amendment. So I will be really brief, because I agree 100% with the points and the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. Business needs clarity. A single objective gives that clarity, and the Minister would be making a big mistake if he did not find a way to clean up the front of the Bill, because it is in his and all our interests that business, which is going to make this work, can be absolutely clear about the objectives. For that reason, I support the noble Earl’s amendments, and I hope the Minister will give a positive response.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I will just add one or two brief points.
First, my noble friend Lord Lindsay talked about clarity and cohesion. I would add another “C”—consistency. If we are to have a landmark Bill—and this must be a landmark Bill—it is clearly important that we get it right as far as we possibly can. During this dreadful year of the pandemic, when the Government—and I am not scoring cheap points—have been fighting something literally unprecedented in the last century, a degree of confusion has been caused by a lack of clarity, consistency and cohesion. I do not want to stray from the Bill into recent events, but we have seen how people have been uncertain, often, about what the Government are really seeking to do.
It is crucial that when this landmark Bill reaches the statute books—as I, of course, hope it will—it is in a significantly better shape than it is at the moment, good as it is. Therefore, while I would like to see the Bill on the statute book by 1 November, what matters far, far more than any artificial timetable is that this Bill is right. Whether it goes on the statute books on 1 November, 1 December or 1 January matters far less than that it is right. You have only to mention the words “Irish protocol” to realise that if you negotiate to a strict and artificial timetable, you often get it wrong.
I referred to my noble friend: he chaired the Environment Sub-Committee of the EU Committee—on which I had the good fortune to sit—extremely well. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also made some very telling points. We have to realise that we are in this sixth crisis; we have to realise that many species are on the brink of extinction. This year, in our small but quite attractive urban garden in Lincoln, we have hardly seen a butterfly. Talking to friends around, I have heard of similar experiences. I read in the Times this morning, coming up on the train, about the lack of Arctic terns in Northumbria—an extraordinary bird that commutes 14,000 miles a year. There is a very real danger to its survival as a species. There are so many things that the Bill can help to underline and combat, and it is essential that it does.
With those few words, I endorse both my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in what they are seeking to do. Although in Committee we are mainly probing, it is essential that the Bill finishes Report in this House in as near a perfect state as it is possible for us to make it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am speaking in support of Amendment 2 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Clearly, the amendments in this group seek to improve the Bill’s environmental objectives by statute, and that is laudable of them all. But Amendment 2 sets a tone for the Bill, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who indicated the need for an assessment and provided a very good assessment of the current state of biodiversity in Cornwall, which could quite easily be mirrored in other parts of the UK.
The Bill needs to have the purpose and declaration of biodiversity and climate emergency specified in it on an equal basis. It is particularly pertinent to set this in legislation if the Government are serious about the need to protect and nurture our unique biodiversity and to mitigate the problems that the climate emergency is bringing to our planet, with increased levels of flooding, the warming of our planet, and the weekend warning that we now have Mediterranean UV levels in the UK. To take the example of Belfast, Department of the Environment statistics show that on 13 June last week, UV levels reached 9 on the solar UV index. This is due to a number of things, including stratospheric ozone depletion, the position of the sun in the sky at this time of year, and the lack of cloud cover. That is one reason why Amendment 2 is so important and why it must be included in statutory form in the Bill in order to give both areas of climate emergency and biodiversity equal status.
I honestly believe that the PM must take charge of the situation. This amendment provides for him—or for whoever is the postholder—to declare that there is a biodiversity and climate emergency both domestically and globally. It will strengthen the governance regime and give strength and toughness to the need for governmental action to protect our biodiversity and to protect our planet from the climate emergency. It is so important that we agree to do this with COP 15 and COP 26 taking place this year.
As the Aldersgate Group—which supplied us with a briefing—stated, the Environment Bill is a vital opportunity to establish a new, ambitious and robust governance framework that protects and enhances the natural environment. What better way to do that than to ensure that the Government accept an amendment to the Bill which provides for the Prime Minister, with statutory effect, to declare that there is a biodiversity and climate emergency both in the UK and globally and, above all, to enhance and strengthen the Bill to ensure that it becomes an even greater landmark Bill with the legislative teeth to act in such urgent circumstances.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Lindsay’s amendments. They help to clarify the purpose of the Bill—which I welcome, as I said at Second Reading. I like the drift of the Bill, but it needs to be strengthened in more than one area. At the moment, it is not going to tackle the problems that we all face.
I like subsection (2) of my noble friend Lord Lindsay’s Amendment 1, where he sets out that the aim is to achieve
“a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment”.
We all want that, and we have failed in the past. There have been all sorts of attempts to get this right but, as I said at Second Reading and will stress throughout Committee, this needs management—it is the people on the land managing nature in its widest sense who will result in an increased and better performance than we have had to date. I want to focus on those people; they are basically landowners and farmers. At the moment, they have very low confidence in what the Government are doing. They are moving from one farming regime to another; they know nothing about the second farming regime through ELMS, and yet their money is being substantially cut. That might be all right for some owner-occupiers, but it is proving a very serious problem for tenant farmers.
Subsection (2)(b) of Amendment 1 goes on to say that the environment must support
“human health and wellbeing for everyone”.
Yes, and I am a great believer in a good footpath system, because I now rely on that for my exercise. But if you talk to any farmer now, they are not in a good position mentally because of the amount of rubbish and harassment they get from people who visit their land. This is a two-way street. It is all very well to encourage people to go to the countryside, but the sad thing is that there is a quite substantial minority abusing that countryside. Anybody who has read the papers or the news recently will know the problems that farmers have had to face, with blocked driveways, blocked entrances to gateways, rubbish, litter, barbecues and wildfires. How are the Government going to help farmers deliver the intentions of the Bill?
Does my noble friend agree that in order to get a good and diverse natural environment in this country, some 21% of agricultural land will need to be planted to trees or bioenergy crops? The counterbalance to that is that there must be an increase of 10% in the productivity of all other agricultural land, otherwise in 10 years’ time we will say, “Yes, we have done something for the environment, but we have done nothing for our food”; our food prices will be going up, and the poorest will be the ones who suffer.
This is a balance; it is an equation that has to be got right. Although I thoroughly support the necessity of the amendments proposed by my noble friend to set the remit of the Environment Bill, we also need to be very careful when discussing it to get the balance right, so that the people who will produce that improved environment are taken with the Government and can also make a living off the land which they farm and manage.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I feel it is only fair to warn your Lordships that you will see quite a lot of the two wonderful Green Peers over the next few weeks. I am sure your Lordships understand that this is a particularly important Bill for us. We have waited a long time, and it is an issue that we both care very deeply about. Having said that, we care about a lot of other issues as well, as noble Lords will have seen.
Of course, a huge amount hinges on this Bill. As I so often do—surprisingly—I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who said that the Bill has to be right. To do that, it has to be amended here in your Lordships’ House. If we get this Bill right, it will mean that we can get a lot of other things right: our farming, our food production and food growing, clean air and clean water supplies, our health and well-being, and our economy. A good Bill will mean no trade deals with countries like Australia—sorry, Natalie—with its awful farming practices, which have been banned here for years, and none of the ecologically and economically illiterate long-distance swapping of lamb and beef when we can buy UK-produced meat right here from our own farmers with higher welfare standards. A good Bill will offer more tech opportunities and more jobs in sustainable industries. A good Bill would be this Bill, heavily amended by your Lordships’ House.
Moving on, this is a perfect group of amendments. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for such a brief introduction; his amendments are incredibly valuable and go to the heart of why the Bill exists. Personally, I think that if we get this right, it will be as big and important a piece of legislation as the Human Rights Act.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I welcome this group of amendments, which are excellent as probing amendments. The voice of business is missing in the Bill, in particular the voice of farmers and landowners, and indeed water companies, which have a real role to play here. I regret also that there is a missed opportunity in the Bill, which is very ambitious on certain levels but has some spectacular omissions at other levels, in that the interaction between this Bill and the Agriculture Act and the Trade Act could have been spelled out more, both at Second Reading and as we proceed now with the more cohesive infrastructure.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lindsay and my noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Teverson, under whose chairmanship my noble friend Lord Cormack and I have the honour to serve on the EU Environment Sub-Committee. I also congratulate Cornwall on so successfully hosting what seemed to be in its own right a successful G7 meeting. Had the meeting been held over the past few days, perhaps it would not have been quite so visually attractive. I am sure that Cornwall will go on to benefit from that, as Yorkshire has from the Tour de France and the Tour de Yorkshire that we held in previous years and which we hope to repeat this year.
I invite my noble friend the Minister, not just when he sums up today but as we go through the Bill, to rise to the challenge that has been laid down by my noble friend Lord Lindsay in particular. There are two specific areas my noble friend Lord Caithness has identified where businesses have a role to play. Farmers stand prepared to play their part in tackling climate change; you need only look at the websites of the farming organisations—the Tenant Farmers Association, the NFU and the CLA—in this regard. However, as my noble friend Lord Caithness identified, all the action the Government seem to be proposing, in planting huge numbers of trees, improving soil quality and many other factors, will be of great benefit to the landowners who own the land, but I struggle to see what the benefit will be for tenant farmers. Looking at the future of upland farming, I think that up to 48% of farms in North Yorkshire alone are tenanted farms, which is a very high proportion. It distinguishes England from other parts of Europe, which do not have this background. I am struggling to see how tenant farmers in particular will benefit under the Bill.
The Government are looking to encourage older farmers to retire, but where they will live is a separate question that needs to be addressed. Smaller houses are simply not being built; smaller properties of one or two bedrooms are not available to allow those who are retiring to either rent or own them. It is not just the starter homes but the step-down homes as well. The other area where I believe farmers, landowners and water companies have a real role to play—we will look at this in later amendments—is flood prevention. Again, this area could be explored more fully in this regard.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, have done the House a great service in enabling us to debate this small group of amendments this afternoon and I look forward very much to hearing my noble friend on the Front Bench tell us more about ELMS, flood prevention and other schemes under the Bill where he expects businesses, particularly farming businesses and water companies, might benefit.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I will speak to Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lindsay—a subject on which I, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and other noble Lords from across the House have spoken many times in this place.
The specific context of my remarks is the proposal by my noble friend Lord Lindsay to insert a new clause specifically to achieve and maintain
“an environment that supports human health and wellbeing for everyone”.
We emerge from Covid with a nation where obesity and mental health concerns among an unfit and often inactive population, particularly among the young, are a major national concern. The decision by the Government, and the Department of Health in particular, to tackle these challenges on a cross-departmental basis, with the impending establishment of the office for health promotion, is as much about prioritising health and educational opportunities as we build back better and level up as it is about access to the countryside and to an environment that supports human health and well-being for everyone.
In days gone by, the order of priority tended to be: sport, recreation and an active lifestyle. Today, policymakers and the public at large seek to reverse that order. An active lifestyle, recreation and sport are the priorities. Such an approach focuses on well-being, both physical and mental—well-being to be supported, I suggest, by a well-being budget with responsibility for drawing all the cross-departmental strands together. This Bill, and in particular my noble friend’s amendment, sets the environmental objectives in this context, which can play a key part in establishing an important element of the legislative framework capable of delivering these objectives.
For an active lifestyle, human health and well-being and the environment are inextricably linked. They are dependent on their environmental contexts and are potentially environmentally impactful in their own right. Sport and recreational facilities, if inadequately planned—such as ski hills, golf courses and stadia, and even some pathways—can upset ecosystems and displace local residents. Here my noble friend Lord Caithness is absolutely right: there must be appropriate safeguards, with access matched by responsibility. As he said, this equation must be got right.
In this context, access to nature has never been more important. Countless studies confirm the health and well-being benefits of being active and connecting with the outdoors. The Covid-19 pandemic makes the case only more compelling. As we recover from the worst of the pandemic, the Environment Bill, with my noble friend’s amendment, establishes a strategic approach to the provision of public access so that support is targeted where it is most needed, ensuring that more people can benefit from the experience of connecting with nature.
It is with that in mind that the Ramblers, Sustrans, British Canoeing, the British Mountaineering Council and the Open Spaces Society, among many others, see that there is much to welcome in the Bill. However, it could be strengthened by my noble friend’s amendment, not least in the requirements in the Bill, which are already welcome, for the Government to set legally binding long-term targets and to develop long-term plans in relation to the key priority areas.
However, without amendments such as my noble friend’s, the Bill will fail to afford equal priority to access to and enjoyment of the natural environment. It enables, rather than requires, the Government to set targets and develop plans for improvements in this area. Therefore there is a disconnect between the Bill and the Government’s own 25 year-old environment plan—or rather the 25-year environment plan; sadly, it is not yet that old—which includes a policy aim to ensure that the natural environment can be used by everyone. Already, the consequences of the lower priority afforded to access are becoming clear; emerging policy from Defra for target-setting is silent on the way the department intends to improve access in future.
In conclusion, I believe that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lindsay could provide for and strengthen the framework needed for these commitments, by strengthening access to nature. As my noble friend Lord Cormack has said, this Bill will guide policy-making for years to come. I support the proposals to establish a framework of legally binding and long-term targets and plans to drive improvements in environmental quality, not least because the state of the natural environment is encouraging people to get outdoors; that is critical. However, the Bill must be strengthened so that connecting people to nature is afforded equal priority and integrated into the wider plans for environmental improvement. For that reason, above all, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Young of Norwood Green [V]
My Lords, I too support the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in his amendment. I may be challenging the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but I will be interested to see the Government’s response. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on chairing the environmental sub-committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, got it right when he said that this is a landmark Bill and that business needs certainty. It is also about how the Bill is perceived by Europe and the COP 26—that is, the rest of the world. This is a fundamentally important Bill and we need to get it right. Perhaps I am luckier than the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in that there are quite a few butterflies in my garden and in a meadow not far away, which shows that there is a variation in what is happening in our environment.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that I see our departure from the common agricultural policy and setting up a new approach to subsidies that would encourage farmers to look after the environment and to have a sustainable approach as a fundamentally important step forward.
There is a challenge for the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was right when she talked about the challenge of retiring farmers; I am more interested in how we are going to encourage young and new tenant farmers, who will bring a new approach. There are many good examples of this around the country; we need a lot more of those young farmers with their different approach that is much more in sympathy with the environment and sustainability.
The benefits to well-being of people using the countryside are of course well known. I apply the 2R formula: if you have a right to access the countryside, you also have a responsibility in the way you use it. You do not leave litter, and we must somehow get rid of the abominable work of flytippers.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. As she said, no doubt that there will be many contributions from her and her colleague. However, I disagree fundamentally with her sweeping comment that there should be no trade deals, especially with Australia. Does she really think that this country can survive without any trade deals? Of course there are going to be trade deals, and I do not automatically dismiss the Australian one. There will be a period of phasing in and a requirement to ensure that we do not import products that we would regard as unsafe, but that has to be based on evidence. Quite frankly, I welcome the deal with Australia, and I will listen carefully to the arguments.
I wish the Minister every success as he deals with the range of challenging and probing amendments to what, as a number of noble Lords have said, is probably one of the most important Bills that we will address in this Parliament.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young. I want to speak to and oppose Amendment 2. Using this Bill to mandate that the Prime Minister should declare that there is a biodiversity and climate emergency, both domestically and globally, strikes me as a form of virtue signalling and almost an imperial version of it by declaring on behalf of the globe. I think that that is a bit too much. I am also concerned that its consequences go beyond wordplay and may play into some anti-democratic trends. In recent years it seems that there has been a competition to up the hyperbole and the catastrophist rhetoric across all parties, perhaps to prove green credentials; I do not know that it helps, and I am not sure that this consensus is healthy either.
We are familiar with the approach on climate and biodiversity being added to the mix. The problem with Amendment 2 is that it follows a certain script, with the emphasis on “emergency”. If the Government keep calling everything an emergency, that will become, “Act now or else command”, and dangerously privileges environmental concerns as trumping all others. That rarely puts those concerns into perspective with other possible emergencies or crises. What about the housing emergency, the jobs emergency and the lack of freedom emergency? By the way, I do not think that the trade deal with Australia is a disaster because it will actually solve an emergency. We do not have enough trade deals and we want more.
I recall back in 2009 the book by James Lovelock, The Vanishing Face of Gaia, in which he wrote that surviving climate change
“may require, as in war, the suspension of democratic government for the duration of the survival period.”
At the time, I thought that that sounded extreme, marginal and farfetched, but after the past 15 months, I feel that it is less farfetched. We have just lived through a public health emergency where exactly these things have occurred. We have suspended democratic governance in many ways in order to survive. I am therefore very wary of allowing a statutory nod to ever more emergencies with similar consequences. Many are worried, for example, that lockdown measures will be used in the future under the auspices of environmentalism. I do not think that that fear is unwarranted.
I note that the independent SAGE group, led by Sir David King, has just announced the setting up of another pseudo-scientific body to be called the Climate Crisis Advisory Group, with 14 experts and10 nations. He has said that it is driven by the urgent need to stabilise climatic conditions and to
“protect vital biodiversity and ecosystem functions for the next generation.”
That is because the biggest challenge we face today are these things. I ask: are they really the biggest challenge? I think it is about the elite PR strategy rather than democracy when Sir David King draws attention to the excess of independent SAGE. He says:
“All 12 members have become media personalities. I hope we get the same level of interest on the climate group.”
I am worried about what is going on and whether it is in good faith.
It seems to me that using the language of crisis and emergency and thus presenting everything as an imminent and existential threat can play fast and loose with democratic accountability. When a state of emergency is declared, as we have seen during Covid, there is no time or space for deliberation or debate. According to Greta Thunberg, the house is on fire.
Civil liberties and democratic freedoms can be suspended, and experts, such as Sir David King, main SAGE, independent SAGE and others suddenly become more important on the centre stage than citizens. When a state of emergency is declared, as would happen in a war, we have to ask who the enemy is. When it comes to biodiversity and the environment, my concern is that the enemy is not the virus, foreign foes or whoever, but us, Homo sapiens, and our nasty overconsumption of energy and demands for decent living standards, cars, homes, industrialisation and development.
My objection to Amendment 2 is not a focus on linguistics and the use of the word “emergency”—my concern is political. Any decision this Bill makes about biodiversity or the natural environment must be concrete, specific, proportionate and avoid the pitfall of whipping up fears about imminent catastrophe. I do not think that declaring an emergency solves anything. I am interested in the details of the Bill, not virtue signalling.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to find myself at this place in the debate and to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. It was certainly a passionate speech, but perhaps not a cohesive one. She spoke about anti-democratic trends and then about there being a consensus. If there is a consensus and local governments are following it, that seems democratic rather than anti-democratic. To point to some figures, a survey was done by the UNDP around the world, of 1.2 million people in 50 countries, published in January this year. It was interesting that in the UK the highest proportion of people—81%—agreed that there is a climate emergency. That is a consensus and, in declaring it, we would be following a democratic path.
My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb noted that your Lordships will be hearing from both of us a great deal. I promise that you will not be hearing from both of us on every amendment, but you will be hearing from us both on Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who introduced it so powerfully. On democracy, the noble Lord pointed out how many local authorities have declared a climate emergency. In fact, 74% of district, county, unitary and metropolitan councils have done that, plus eight combined authorities and city regions. Sheffield Council has just declared a biodiversity emergency, as have Eden District Council and Dorset, so it is spreading around the country.
Perhaps I can offer the Government a little political advice, thinking of the situation in which they find themselves with the blue wall. I note that Henley-on-Thames Town Council, in the heart of what is considered the blue wall, is planning to declare a biodiversity emergency this week. It is going further and plans to back the climate and ecological emergency Bill, so the Government might like to think about not just the science of this but the politics.
I will be brief, because my noble friend has already covered much of this ground, but I want to pick up a point from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering; she said that we have not heard enough from business. I refer to the consultancy firm Deloitte and its environment report a month or so back, which said that there is now, in the combination of environmental, pandemic, social and economic changes, a business emergency. It says that we need cohesive government policies and guidance to tackle this.
This group of amendments, particularly Amendment 2, provides the cohesion that is crucial for this Bill. As we have seen on so many issues, the public are leading here; 81% of the public accept the climate emergency. Local government is not far behind and it is time for the Government, as the chair of COP 26, to catch up.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and my noble friend Lord Teverson, for their amendments. We support the intentions of the noble Earl but believe that other amendments may equally pick up the issues that he rightly raises. There are amendments later in the Bill on setting legally binding interim targets that, we believe, will give business much of the certainty that it requires. We support the important intentions to ensure that public health is addressed, at the same time as supporting the natural environment, but believe that some of the amendments put down by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market on Clause 7 will give that certainty to reinforce the link between the natural environment and public health.
We think that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Teverson is absolutely right and are glad that it is in the first grouping, because this is a biodiversity crisis. I am happy to stand with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in taking a different line from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley—“opposing” is too strong a term. My strong view is that if we do not address the two climate and biodiversity threats, we cannot address any of the other threats that society faces. They are the fundamental building blocks on which our society, as individuals and businesses, relies. Therefore, it is right and proper to use the language of crisis.
I would perhaps concede that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has a point in how we must be careful not to catastrophise. If we want to bring a democratic society with us, catastrophising will not be enough. We have to lead from the front and tell people how we can address the two crises of biodiversity and climate. There is therefore a key issue of communication. That is why I particularly like it that my noble friend’s amendment—supported by the Labour Party and the Green Party—says that
“the Prime Minister must declare that there is a biodiversity and climate emergency”.
This is about communicating with the public. I hope to see, throughout the progress of the Bill in Committee, the Minister make it clear just how the Government are going to communicate with the public. We can stay here today, tomorrow and for the next seven or so sittings and argue about these matters but, unless we take the British public with us, we will not deliver. The Government have to lead the public, as consumers, recyclers and in all their other guises. We need strong leadership from the Government to communicate that joint climate and sustainability challenge, and I hope to hear a lot more from the Minister on that, as we go through Committee.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have had an excellent start to our debates and consideration of the Bill, which helpfully sets the scene for the weeks ahead and underlines the scale of the challenge before us. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that you will also hear a great deal more from the Labour Front Benches on these issues.
We have become accustomed to accepting that there is a climate emergency, but it is now clear that the decline in biodiversity is having an equally devastating impact on the planet. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, they are inextricably linked. This is why I was pleased to add my name to his Amendment 2.
It is two years since Parliament declared a climate and ecological emergency, on 1 May 2019. Since then, the need for more urgent action on the environment has only increased. The RSPB State of Nature report records that 41% of UK species are declining and one in 10 is threatened with extinction. It documented how the UK has failed to reach 17 of the 20 UN biodiversity targets agreed 10 years ago. The WWF’s Living Planet Report 2020 shows an average 68% decline in the populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish, globally, since 1970. Yet we rely on these species to keep our planet’s complex ecological systems in balance.
Noble Lords have spoken eloquently today about the consequences of our neglect of nature both domestically and globally. This need for urgent action has been echoed by a number of noble Lords. As the Dasgupta report drives home, the message that flourishing biodiversity across the planet is crucial for our economies, as well as for our well-being and for life itself, is all too apparent. I recommend that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, reads that report, if she has not already done so, because it underlines the crisis that confronts us now and certainly justifies us calling it an emergency.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay for beginning this Committee. I note the support for his amendment from my noble friends Lord Cormack, Lord Caithness and Lady McIntosh, the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Young, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. In fact, a great many other speakers supported it as well and I will not continue to list them.
The amendments that my noble friend has tabled are, in effect, a summary of the Bill in its totality—it could not be a clearer summary, in a sense. The Environment Bill, as a manifesto commitment, sets a new and ambitious domestic framework for environmental governance. A resilient environment is essential for our own health and that of our planet. We recognise that the environment, unlike many areas of law where there are more clearly defined legal and economic interests, is often unowned. Environmental harms, including climate change, are necessarily, by their nature, more diffusely spread. That is why we have designed the Bill to create a comprehensive system of environmental governance that will put the environment at the heart of our policy-making and ensure clear and strong accountability.
The overall objective of the Bill is to deliver on the goals of the 25-year environment plan, and the environmental governance framework has been designed with the plan’s key objectives of environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment at the forefront.
First, both targets and environmental improvement plans have the objective of delivering significant improvements to the natural environment—Clauses 6 and 7 being the obvious places for that. That objective provides certainty on the direction of travel; it will also drive long-lasting significant improvement in the natural environment. Clause 7 creates an ongoing requirement for the Government to have a
“plan for significantly improving the natural environment”.
The Government will be required to review that plan regularly and set out whether further policies are needed to improve the natural environment and achieve those targets.
Secondly, Clause 16 provides an objective for the environmental principles. It requires that the policy statement on environmental principles produced by the Secretary of State must contribute to the “improvement of environmental protection”, as well as “sustainable development”. When making policy, Ministers of the Crown must have due regard to the policy statement. These objectives will be integral to policy-making across government. This is the first time that Ministers across government will be legally obliged to consider the environmental principles in policy development wherever it impacts the environment.
Lastly, the OEP has the principal objective of contributing to environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment. The OEP is able to undertake enforcement action against a public body’s breach of an environmental law that protects the natural environment, or to provide advice on a proposed change to an environmental law that improves the natural environment.
In summary, the Bill as a whole is designed to deliver the overarching ambition of our 25-year environment plan, which in many respects is reflected in the amendments tabled by my noble friend. The measures have been designed to legally work together with common statutory objectives to deliver the improvement and protection of the natural environment and to deliver the sustainable use of resources.
Before I come to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I want to address some of the points made by noble Lords. My noble friends Lord Caithness and Lady McIntosh raised their concerns about the lack of clarity for the business community, particularly farmers, in relation to the big transition that is happening. There is no doubt that it is a massive and revolutionary transition. It is the first transformation of its kind and something that needs to happen all over the world if we are going to have any hope at all of closing the gap between where we are and where we need to be on biodiversity. I can say that officials in my department have been working closely, as have colleagues at ministerial level, with farmers’ organisations, from the very largest—the National Farmers’ Union—to smaller organisations, to ensure that the sector is very much walking in lockstep with us as we develop the proposals and as those proposals morph into an actual policy.
The principle is pretty clear: we are moving to a system where the things that are not currently recognised by the market but which are good will be paid for through subsidies. As noble Lords might expect, things that are paid for by the market, such as food, will therefore not be on that list. It is a straightforward principle, although of course the effects will differ from farm to farm, and that is the beauty of solutions when it comes to the natural environment.
I should add that farmers, as a whole, are among the most entrepreneurial and dynamic people in this country. They are for ever adapting to circumstance and acting in response to market signals. The discussions, exchanges and engagement that we have been having for months now with the farming community suggest, and give me a great deal of confidence, that they will respond extraordinarily well to these new signals that the Government are going to be providing.
My noble friend Lord Cormack described with great sadness the decline of butterflies in his garden, and I know that that situation is duplicated all around the country and indeed the world. I say that we can still find room for optimism; if you give nature half a chance, it comes back extraordinarily quickly. I have had the privilege of seeing for myself, in areas that have been intensively farmed not particularly carefully for decades but have then been treated in a different manner—with organic farming or even, in some cases, rewilding—that nature returns extraordinarily quickly. That is what the Bill will do: it will give nature not just half a chance but a chance.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan talked about the critical importance of access to nature. If he does not mind, I will not go into detail on that issue because we will be discussing and debating it when we come to the fifth group of amendments—that might even be today, if we make some progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, discussed the comparisons between where we heading with the Bill and what we are leaving with the EU. We repeat our commitment, as we have many times, that the environment will be at least as well protected after this transition as it was under EU treaties. Many noble Lords will agree that those protections greatly exceed those provided by EU treaties, and that too is reflected in the Bill in numerous ways.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised the Dasgupta review, which I am pleased about; it needs to be raised at every opportunity, because it is so important. I have had endless discussions with counterparts around the world as part of our attempts to raise ambitions for COP and the CBD, and the Dasgupta review was part of almost every one of those conversations. It is globally recognised for its importance but, despite its length and sometimes complicated language, it has a fairly straightforward message: that our economies and our livelihoods need to be reconciled with the natural world, and everything we have comes from nature. I part company with the noble Baroness on her thoughts on the Government’s response. The response is not exhaustive, but was never the end of the story; it is the beginning. We must do an enormous amount to take heed of and internalise the message of the Dasgupta review in the way we govern. That applies to this Government, and successive Governments. The response was an enthusiastic nod to the principles with examples of the kinds of things we are doing, but without going into the level of detail which a Government would find difficult at this point.
Moving to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for which I thank him, I can reassure him that the Government absolutely are taking climate change and environmental concern seriously. There is an absolute recognition, both at a domestic level and in everything we are doing internationally, that the two are inextricably linked; as he said, you cannot tackle one without the other. A good climate COP will have good implications for nature, and a good CBD will have good implications for climate. We absolutely recognise the extent of the crisis which he and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, relayed to us. There is no doubt that the facts on the ground tell us that we are in crisis territory, and perhaps we will part company here with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We debated the issue some time ago of whether or not we face a biodiversity crisis, and I will not repeat all the arguments I used, but she is right to be alert to the risk that any crisis can be used to justify authoritarianism and poor policy. It is therefore important that we get policy right but that does not take away from the facts, which paint a bleak picture of continued decline.
We have set out concrete steps towards reaching net zero by 2050, through the PM’s 10-point plan, which brought together £12 billion of government investment. The energy White Paper and industrial decarbonisation strategy will continue to demonstrate global leadership on climate change, and we will bring forward further bold proposals, such as the net-zero strategy, which will be published before COP 26. Again, nature is at the heart—although it is clearly not the only part—of our response to the net-zero challenge here in the UK, and is a critical part of our message globally. We have successfully changed the debate on the role of nature in tackling climate change internationally, such that most countries when they talk about their response to climate change talk about nature, in a way which they simply did not a year ago. It remains the case, however, that of all international climate finance, only 2.5% to 3% is spent on nature-based solutions. That really should be closer to half. That too is something which we hope to shift through our negotiations and discussions with other countries, and through our own example, where we have not only doubled our international climate finance but committed that nearly a third of it will be spent on nature-based solutions.
Of course, the Bill itself is a clear demonstration of our action to tackle the biodiversity crisis, including biodiversity net gain, local nature recovery strategies, and due diligence for forest risk commodities. I hope that this provides reassurance that the amendments, which have provoked a very valuable debate, are nevertheless not needed. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful response, to which I will give careful thought. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who spoke in support of my amendments in this group, and for the wisdom, experience and expertise with which they supplemented my opening remarks.
Achieving cohesion and clarity—and my noble friend Lord Cormack was quite right to add a third C, consistency—is going to be vital. If we can achieve those three Cs, then there are two further critical Cs which we can expect to be delivered by the business community: a commitment to the future, and the confidence to invest. If we are to achieve the environmental objectives which we all want, we must achieve all those five Cs. I will reflect carefully on what has been said in this debate, and especially carefully on the Minister’s remarks. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 4. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 4
The Duke of Wellington
Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to include the cleansing of rivers as a priority.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, this amendment in my name—and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for adding her name to it—has one simple purpose. I wish to persuade the excellent Ministers—in this House the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and in the other place Rebecca Pow—to acknowledge as a priority the importance of cleaning the rivers of this country. The Government have repeatedly stated that this generation should be the first to leave the environment in a better state than that in which we inherited it. This vision has almost unanimous support, I am sure, in both Houses of Parliament and in the country as a whole. The main target is, of course, to reach a state of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and I understand why this is the overarching ingredient in policy-making.
There is so much in the Bill which I support. In Clause 1(2), the Secretary of State must set long-term targets in respect of air quality, water, biodiversity and waste reduction. Part 5 is devoted to water, and contains clauses on resource management, drought planning, and drainage and sewerage management. Since the Bill arrived in this House, the Government have tabled their own amendments on sewerage management, which I welcome but will attempt to strengthen through amendments later in the Bill. But Chapter 1, which we are debating today, is entitled “Improving the natural environment”, with the subheading “Environmental targets.” My proposal is that the Government set a target for improving the natural environment of our rivers.
I am grateful to the Minister for a meeting last week with a number of Peers, mainly from the Cross Benches. From that meeting, I understand that there is doubt about the appropriateness of the European standard of good ecological status, in which case I suggest to Ministers that they establish a new United Kingdom standard and have a target for progressive percentages of rivers to reach that target in five years, in 10 years, and finally for 100% of rivers to reach that target in 15 years. Ministers have stated that they want to be ambitious, to set high standards and to lead the world by example. That being the case, we must not allow untreated sewage to be discharged into our rivers over 400,000 times or for more than 3 million hours during 2020, as reported by the Environment Agency.
I read again the highlights of the 25-year environment plan published by the Government in 2018. Although “clean and plentiful water” is listed among the environmental benefits to be achieved, there is no specific reference to the elimination of the shocking level of sewage discharges. That is my point: while we strive as a nation to reduce carbon emissions to zero, improve biodiversity and clean the air we breathe, we cannot continue to accept that raw sewage is discharged into rivers, harming all aquatic wildlife and imperilling the health of human beings who swim in or enjoy the rivers.
I fear that the apparent unwillingness of the Government to make this a priority is the great cost involved in converting our drainage and sewerage infrastructure. In other parts of the Bill there will be an opportunity to debate how this could or should be paid for. I do not believe that most members of the public are aware that, in the 21st century in a developed country such as ours, raw sewage is still being discharged into rivers every day. I think most people would expect the Government, in their new Environment Bill, to make it a priority not just to reduce but to eliminate these discharges. That is the purpose of my amendment and I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in his amendment. On the face of it, this does seem an omission, given that clauses from Clause 83 onwards deal specifically with water quality, yet it does not appear as a specific target.
I declare my interests in the register and that I co-chair the All-Party Water Group. I worked for five years with the water regulator for Scotland—WICS, the Water Industry Commission for Scotland—and I have co-authored two reports on bricks and water which deal with water issues specifically in relation to housing. I am also vice-president of ADA, the Association of Drainage Authorities. Drainage boards have a specific role to play, being responsible for ensuring that lower-lying watercourses of below either eight metres or eight feet—I cannot remember which—flow as smoothly as they should.
Amendment 4 is commendable, and I congratulate my noble friend the Duke of Wellington on bringing it forward. Of course we should aim to have the best water quality, and to ensure that we have clean rivers, that—where possible—farmers can farm less intensively, and that we meet the highest domestic and international water quality standards, as well as seeking to improve our soils. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, we must have a level playing field to ensure that we are not just improving watercourses in this country but ensuring that products grown on less regulated land and soil do not have a free pass to come into this country through trade agreements.
I would like to address one issue that my noble friend the Duke of Wellington referred to—untreated raw sewage being spilled into our watercourses. I would like to pose the question: why is that happening? It is happening because water companies are being placed in an impossible position. They are obliged to connect to major and smaller developments—to provide clean water and to collect wastewater and sewage coming out. We increasingly see that water companies are obliged to connect, even when they are placed in a situation where they may not be deemed able to do so.
I draw attention to the fact that we are seeing increasing amounts of surface water. This is a relatively recent phenomenon; it was identified for the first time in any significant way in 2007. I am drawing on the experience of Sir Michael Pitt, who was asked by the then Labour Government to write a very comprehensive review of how we should adapt to this new form of surface water flooding. Many of his recommendations have been implemented but many have not.
Subsequently, I am tabling amendments which will address the specific point of raw sewage. One way of dealing with it is to end the automatic right to connect to major new developments. This was called for by Sir Michael Pitt. It will address the specific problem of sewage outflow, particularly where combined sewers overflow and cause a public health issue in many cases—where the sewage overflow goes into existing developments and those residents have to leave. I believe we have asked too much of water companies, without giving them the wherewithal to address this, either through the quinquennial price review, or by allowing them to do whatever they choose to connect—sometimes against their better judgment—to major developments.
A way of addressing that is to ensure that water companies are given the same statutory right to consultation as has now been extended to the Environment Agency. Since the Environment Agency has been granted that right, we have seen the number of houses prone to flooding that are being built significantly reduce. Similarly, I hope we can see that water companies are not placed in an impossible position when it comes to major and significant new housing developments, particularly where they may be built on functional flood plains or land prone to flooding in the shorter term.
I entirely endorse the comments and remarks of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in moving this amendment about the importance of maintenance. We have to differentiate between the maintenance of major and minor watercourses, ensure that local authorities have the budget and resources to do the maintenance they are required to do and that the Environment Agency oversees it. I pay tribute to the work of those local drainage boards and landowners who are often responsible for doing the regular and very necessary maintenance on minor watercourses.
This might seem a small amendment but it is very significant, and I hope my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on it, and on the later amendments we will consider in due course. I support Amendment 4.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 4, so ably moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and congratulate him on the work he has been doing on this important issue. I do not have significant amounts to add, but I believe that, as my noble friend the Minister said, this is a chance to radically improve environmental policy. In particular, the areas outlined in the Bill, such as air quality and water per se, could be enhanced by adding the specific requirement to take account of improvements urgently needed to water quality.
The Government have already said that they proposed to publish a plan by September 2020 to reduce sewage discharges into our rivers and waterways. I am obviously supportive of that and of placing a duty on water companies to publish annual data on storm overflows and set legally binding targets for water quality. However, it is likely that those issues will be dealt with in a more long-term timeframe than one might have hoped, given this landmark Bill.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support the sentiment of Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, but water quality is not the only issue to do with water. I would not want that to be to the particular focus, because with increasing climate change and growing demand, water quantity is also important.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, is rightly exercised about sewage pollution into our rivers, as is the Minister. I look forward to saying more when we debate Amendments 161 and 162 on reducing and eliminating sewage discharges into rivers, which importantly go into detail on the programmes and actions needed to get this to happen.
I declare an interest as a former chief executive of the Environment Agency. I think it is quite clear that, although it has brought only 174 prosecutions over the last 10 years, there could have been more than 2,000 breaches in that period and a vastly greater number of legal discharges under the current regulations. That is a source of considerable public concern.
In support of the considerable work done by the Environment Agency and the water companies, I should say that river water has improved dramatically over the last 20 years. We should not relax in that, because the current situation is totally unacceptable. Nevertheless, a major amount of river water has been cleaned up. Most of our waters were completely dead and highly polluted 20 years ago and they are now in a much better state, but we still have more to do.
We had EU regulation to rely on in the past, which was needed to drive the Government to do something about exactly this problem in the River Thames, by creating the Thames super-sewer. At that stage, we had the dirtiest river of any capital city in Europe. I am delighted that action was taken, but it needed the full weight of environmental regulation coming from Europe and a considerable and hefty programme of fining of the Government to get action taken. We need to ensure through the mechanism of the Bill that we move forward and tackle this running sore—if noble Lords will pardon the phrase. I welcome the creation of the storm overflow task force and look forward to its findings. I look forward to debating the government amendment to tackle this issue and strengthening it in the appropriate place in the Bill.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is right to talk about the Thames. I remember the Thames half a century ago, when I first came to Parliament, and what an utter disgrace it was. But that should not lead us to be in any way complacent. Although my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering referred to this as a small amendment—and it is in terms of words—it is absolutely crucial. Unless we clean up our rivers, the Environment Bill—the Act, as I am sure it will become—will fail. It is as simple as that.
Not so long ago there was a great campaign about our coastal waters, and there is still much to be done. One of my most vivid memories of the other place was an Adjournment Debate at 10 pm one night, introduced by the late Sir Reggie Bennett, about swimming off the coast. I remember he said, “Mr Speaker, you cannot swim off the coast, you can only go through the motions”. I fear that that is the case with many of our rivers today. I hope the Minister will endorse that it is crucial that we get this right, because how clean our waterways are will be a test of the success of the Environment Act.
We have some glorious rivers in this country and some wonderful chalk streams. I think one of the saddest pictures that I have seen in the last 12 months was of a stretch of perhaps the loveliest river of all, the Wye, which had been so contaminated by the effluent from intensively reared battery chickens—something else we need to tackle. We are all in debt to my noble friend the Duke of Wellington, not only for bringing this amendment forward but for introducing on the very day of Second Reading, his own Bill on cleaning up our inland waterways.
This is a vital issue, but I cannot sit down before saying what a joy it is to see my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern in the Chamber. We have seen him many times appear on the Zoom screen, and it is wonderful to have him here in person among us.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I think we can count that as the best joke of the Environment Bill Committee so far, so I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for that. I had not intended to speak on this amendment, so all I shall say is that this is a very important issue. It is probably dealt with more specifically and better later in the Bill, but I very much support the thoughts of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the late Lord Ridley of Liddesdale would be as disappointed as I am that, last year, no English river met the highest chemical standards and only 15% of UK rivers were rated as having good ecological status. That was not the intention when we privatised the water companies in the 1980s. But the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, was absolutely right to say, notwithstanding what I have just said, that the rivers are in a great deal better condition now than they were 30 years ago—and the water Act of the mid-1980s was responsible for that. The rivers would be of better quality now if the National Rivers Authority had continued in existence by itself and not been merged with the Environment Agency. That part of the Environment Agency has not been nearly as effective as it was when it was a single authority.
This is a hugely important issue, and we shall come to it in some more detail. I totally agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. The issue of water is much wider than just water quality; it includes the whole water environment, abstraction and pollution. To prioritise water, as this Bill does, and then to talk particularly about water quality, defeats the object that the Government are trying to achieve, which is to raise the quality of water across the board. Therefore, although I support the principle of what the noble Duke is trying to do, I hope that it will be dealt with at a later stage rather than at this stage.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I take everybody’s point about the fact that this amendment does not quite measure up to everything that we want from it, but it is a really good start. And I think that this is an issue that we will defeat the Government on. In all my talks with Conservative Members of your Lordships’ House, they have mentioned how concerned they are about rivers; a lot of landowners are massively concerned.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about sewage and water companies. It does her credit that she is so sympathetic towards them but, quite honestly, they make a lot of money and they should be clearing up their own mess. If they cannot take on these contracts, they should not take them on—or they should dig bigger holes to bury the sewage, or whatever it takes. When it comes to cost, we should look at the businesses that make money out of our rivers and our sewage, and we should make them pay.
I shall go back to my speech now. Basically, the issue of water pollution is very much underserved by this Bill at the moment, so I urge the Government to pick this up and run with it, because it is something that they will lose on. The truth is that many of our rivers, lakes and water courses in this country are still filthy and polluted. It is something that the European Commissioner rightly took us to task on—the Government have repeatedly lost legal challenges on the issue. For that reason, it is also one of the big environmental risks of leaving the EU system of environmental laws. The Government could have a convenient opportunity to quietly end their long tradition of losing court battles on water pollution simply by ditching those rules altogether or subjecting them to the jurisdiction of a toothless regulator.
We know that water is life. We cannot do without it and, if we pollute it, many things die, including humans. Water pollution has a long-lasting and pervasive impact on our lives and the natural world around us—it is not always easy to clean up. Most people do not even know how polluted our water is. I have had gastroenteritis from swimming in the Thames; I thought that I was high enough up the Thames for it to be clean but, apparently, it was not.
The Government have to understand that it is not just about chemicals that we should not drink going in; that is only a tiny part of the picture. For example, the River Thames floods with human sewage multiple times a week and also has some of the highest recorded levels of microplastics in the world. It is long overdue for the Government to get a grip on water pollution. Quite honestly, this amendment is a good little start, and I congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on this. I look forward to him toughening up future amendments on sewage.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as in the register, particularly in relation to this amendment, as the president of the Colne Valley Regional Park, where we have had a lot of issues over water quality and the streams. Over the weekend, I was asked to join the advisory board of River Action UK, to replace, I think, my noble friend Lord Benyon, who as a Defra Minister cannot hold that position. I look forward to joining that group and working on this.
This is a very useful debate on a subject close to my heart, and I congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and my noble friend Lady Altmann, on supporting him and signing the amendment with him. We have a lot of problems—and, as we have heard, they are not just around water quality, though we do have a real problem with that. We have heard about sewage discharge and run-off, and we have heard about the River Wye and the run-off from battery chicken farms. Those are all incredibly important and worrying things. But we also have problems around abstraction. The problems of abstraction and river quality have affected us locally in the Colne Valley, with the aquifer that has been compromised, seemingly, by HS2. As I said at Second Reading, that has only recently been admitted and made public—thanks, particularly, to a local campaign.
We also have an issue around Heathrow, which is not mentioned very often. I can remember many years ago, when I was the MP for the area, being asked to have a look at where the settling pools are. The run-off comes from washing aircraft with very highly toxic chemicals to de-ice the planes, and it goes into the settling pools just on the edge of Heathrow. Unfortunately, from time to time, they overflow in times of excessive rain and flow into local river courses. I understand from a recent discussion I had that that is no longer happening—but these are always risks, and things that we do not always think about.
The problem of sewage has been mentioned. We have had problems whereby a hotel or housing development has been misconnected and sewage has run, untreated, straight into our local rivers. It is also worth mentioning that before she was a Minister, the Minister in the other place, Rebecca Pow, raised with me the question of where hairdressers put all the chemicals that they use in their basins. She referred in particular to ladies’ hairdressers, I think—as noble Lords can see from my appearance, I am somewhat hirsute and not too bothered about hair; I just get a quick trim. These are all very important issues.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has just said, we are aware of the state of the water in rivers, but actually it does not matter how far up the Thames you go because any river can have these sewage discharges. What concerns me is the wild swimmers, kayakers, fishermen and, as happened locally last weekend, children in low-level water filling up their water pistols—they are more like water sub-machine guns these days—and firing them happily at each other, probably ingesting some of the water. It would be no surprise to me if some of them come down with gastroenteritis or even worse. I hope that that does not happen.
With regard to fishermen, I have to pay a tribute. In the Colne Valley, the Colne Valley Fisheries Consultative and its chairman Tony Booker, as well as Paul Jennings of the River Chess Association, have really pushed on this and made everyone aware of it.
There is a problem: the Environment Agency is vastly underfunded these days, I am afraid to say. I am sure that, when the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, was in charge, it had more funds and was more able to deal with some of these incidents. There almost seems to be a lack of interest now, or perhaps it is just a lack of resources, which means that it does not follow up some of these cases.
We have got to take these things seriously. I entirely understand that there is probably a better set of amendments, including the Government’s own later, but I wanted to put down a marker to show that I consider this to be extremely important. If we were sitting here in 1858, with the Great Stink going on, before Joseph Bazalgette came in with his plans for the sewerage of London, we would all be taking this a great deal more seriously.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, not down the road of the Great Stink but certainly on his references to his river experiences. I am delighted to support this amendment and thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for tabling it. He spoke eloquently at Second Reading on the issue of the cleanliness of our rivers; I was pleased to support him then and do so now with enthusiasm.
The need to keep our rivers clean, as part of environment policy, is self-evident. Persistent reports of pollution impacting on river life, killing off fish stocks, affecting surrounding lands and environments and even causing health problems to people—particularly children, as has just been mentioned—swimming in rivers are a worrying feature of our contemporary world.
Obviously, there may be implications for landowners, particularly farmers, whose land abuts our rivers—but the overwhelming majority of such people also want to secure clean rivers. If the necessary steps are properly negotiated, they can surely be agreed. The Government should not steer shy of dealing with this issue in the mistaken belief that they will face severe opposition from countryside interests.
Equally, industrial interests must not stand in the way of cleaning up our rivers. Let us reiterate without equivocation that the polluter pays principle must be applied with such force that it becomes a real deterrent. Our water companies must equally be held to account. I want to learn from the Minister what new, effective action to reduce such pollution will emanate from this Bill and who will be responsible in practice for enforcing its provisions in this regard.
As the Minister might expect, I invite him to clarify how he and his department will co-operate with the Welsh Government in relation to rivers that run across the border. Most of them run from Wales into England, but not all and, as river pollution is no respecter of political borders, we must have an agreed approach that respects the wishes of Governments on both sides of the border but also ensures that we work coherently to reduce and, we hope, eliminate the tragic pollution of our rivers.
Incidentally, I have no problem whatever with having UK, or at least GB, standards for these purposes, provided that those targets can be achieved by constructive negotiation by the three, or possibly four, Governments with responsibility for various aspects of environmental policy in Britain.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has said and many important points made by other Peers. I have only one point to make on top of the others: there has been no real improvement for so long now—certainly, not very much since 2016. In 2020, only 40% of waterways were classified as being in good health—meaning as close to their natural state as possible.
We all know that a major cause of this is sewage. In 2020, raw sewage was discharged more than 400,000 times over a period of 3 million hours, and this water, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has claimed, brings huge quantities of microplastics as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, sewage is not the only cause: some 40% comes from run-off from agricultural industries.
The point is that, since legislation was passed and the Environment Agency has been in charge and responsible for it, there has been no real improvement. This may be due to lack of proper funding, but the fact is that it has not been able to bring about any real change. We now have the worst quality in Europe, with England comparing very badly with Scotland, where 65.7% of surface water bodies are in good health. We know this—it has been repeated time and again, and the environmental Ministers acknowledge it.
The question is: how can we ensure that real change takes place soon? Including Amendment 4 is where we must start in ensuring that good quality water is a goal that we fully intend to achieve. We must use this Bill to ensure that we achieve it.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be speaking to this amendment moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. During the past two years, many of your Lordships have raised the issue of the quality of the water in many of our iconic rivers and given very graphic examples of where pollution has been discharged, untreated, into our waterways. We have heard about chicken manure being discharged into the River Wye, previously one of the most beautiful rivers on our island. At Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, reminded us about the discharge of raw sewage into rivers. As one of her first duties, the newly elected MP for Chesham and Amersham, Sarah Green MP, has visited the River Chess to hear from the local action group about the pollution of it.
During lockdown, with local authority swimming pools closed to the public, those who were able took to what has become known as wild swimming in the sea and rivers. I am assured that this is extremely invigorating and refreshing, but probably not so if you are encountering severe pollution on the scale that we have heard of from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Biodiversity is severely affected by the pollution in our rivers.
The treatment of sewage is the responsibility of the sewerage and water authorities. It is not sufficient for them to claim that new housing developments have overwhelmed their treatment plants and they have no choice but to discharge sewage into our rivers and sea. We have heard recently of the public disquiet about the Government’s proposals to change the planning laws. Often, statutory consultees respond to local authorities with “no comment”, but often they do not respond at all. Perhaps this is an issue of resources, with Defra cuts to the Environment Agency filtering down to the front line. The water authorities should be obliged to respond to consultation on proposed housing developments, especially where there is insufficient capacity in existing treatment plants to cope with the current, never mind the future, demand.
All noble Lords taking part in this debate have expressed concern on the issue of water quality. The Government must take it seriously if we are to restore the quality of the water in our rivers to enable biodiversity to increase, even if it is unlikely ever to reach its former levels. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and others have flagged, we will return to this in later amendments. This is a very serious matter, as my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, and we fully support the comments of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in moving this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his amendment and his speech today. I will speak briefly on the amendment. We will come on to a separate debate about whether the environmental targets as a whole are adequate when we consider that matter later in the Bill. We will argue that the targets should be more comprehensive, and combined with legally binding interim targets, to ensure that real progress is made in the time agreed.
In addition to this amendment, the noble Duke has tabled others later in the Bill to address the issue of water quality and the pollution of rivers. We absolutely share his objective to clean up water and prevent sewage flowing into our rivers; he has been a great champion of this. We have tabled similar amendments which would also prevent the discharge of sewage into rivers. We believe that the Government’s proposals on this issue so far are inadequate and we look forward to the debate on this.
In the meantime, I have some concerns about the wording of this amendment. First, it narrows the scope of the long-term water targets to concentrate on water quality when there are much wider concerns to be addressed, for example about the role of water companies, the supply of water, drought and flooding safeguards, and sustainable urban development protection and maintenance. These points have all been made by other noble Lords in this debate and a number have given vivid examples of the challenges we face in these areas. Narrowing it down to water quality perhaps does not achieve what the noble Duke is aiming to do. Secondly, we do not accept that the issue of water quality should be a long-term target: it requires action more urgently, specifically with regard to sewage discharge. This is the subject of our later amendments, and those in the name of the noble Duke, and we look forward to returning to it.
Despite these reservations about this amendment, I agree with the noble Duke’s overall intention and will be supportive when we get to the more substantive debate, when we will have a great deal more to say on the issue.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for tabling Amendment 4. I note the support that it has received from a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lord Cormack and Lord Randall and the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Wigley.
The Bill will require the Government to set at least one legally binding long-term water target. I reassure the noble Duke that this of course covers water quality. The Government are currently considering water target objectives in relation to reducing pollution from agriculture, wastewater and abandoned metal mines, as well as in relation to reducing water demand. This approach encompasses water quality, but also allows the inclusion of broader objectives, such as reducing the impact of water demand on the water environment, which I know is of great interest to numerous Members of this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. This point was echoed and made well by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
I will address some of the individual points that have been made. The amendment essentially relates to the outrage over raw sewage entering our waterways as a consequence of storm overflows. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has pursued this issue relentlessly, and rightly so. To reiterate, the amendment that the Government have tabled does three things. It requires the Government to deliver a plan for tackling sewage discharge, and to report on progress, and it requires the water companies and the Environment Agency to be transparent with their data. In addition, my colleague in the other place, Rebecca Pow, said only last week that if water companies do not step up then we will use the drainage and wastewater management plans to force them to. I am happy to reiterate that commitment now. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
In addition, the Government are already pursuing various measures to improve water quality over and above what has been mentioned. For example, the 2015 river basin management plans confirmed £3 billion of investment over the period to 2021 in England. This has led to over 11,000 kilometres of surface water being enhanced and a further 2,349 kilometres protected since the 2015 plans were published. We are encouraging best agricultural practice to prevent and reduce pollution through regulation, financial incentives and educational schemes for farmers. The shift to ELM, which has already been mentioned, is going to have a radical and profound impact on water pollution. A task force comprising the Government, the water industry, regulators and environmental NGOs is currently working to achieve the long-term goal of eliminating the harm from sewage discharge into our rivers and other waterways from storm overflows. We will, of course, take the recommendations of that task force very seriously. I hope that that also somewhat reassures noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, asked whether I would be willing to commit to a meeting with a number of noble Lords to discuss this issue further. The answer is yes, of course. I am very happy to do so and will make contact after today’s debate. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, also raised the fact that a mere 15% of our rivers enjoy good ecological status. He is right, but I want to put this in context. This is not to diminish the issue, because water pollution is clearly unacceptable, and we need to get to grips with it. However, it is worth pointing out that, to qualify for good ecological status, the waterway has to be close to a natural form. That means that waterways that have been canalised, straightened or modified—for example, for flood defences, transport or something similar—will be regarded as having been heavily modified. Those waterways cannot achieve good ecological status, no matter how clean the water is or how much biodiversity they have. It is worth putting that in context; while 16% of our waters do have good ecological status, that does not mean that 84% are in poor condition. I hope that we can get to grips with this and develop our own metrics at some point so that we can avoid confusion and have a clearer understanding of the actual situation in our waters.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked about enforcement. Defra works closely with the devolved Administrations on environmental issues across the board, particularly with the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales, covering water quality in their respective areas.
By setting a water target that focuses on the biggest pressures on the water environment, the Government will, we hope, make faster progress towards improving water quality. Although we appreciate the noble Duke’s aims, we do not think that focusing the water target priority area on water quality alone, as his amendment proposes, will be the best way of achieving those aims. I therefore respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. Of course, I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it is not just water quality that matters but water quantity as well. A number of noble Lords made reference to the River Thames. However, anybody who watched the BBC “Panorama” programme about two months ago would surely be left in no doubt that there is still much to do to clean up that river, which is in an embarrassingly poor state. Nevertheless, I understand that the quality of our rivers generally is much better than it was 20 years ago. I was very impressed by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who clearly understands the problem well. He referred to an event in 1858, when there was general recognition of the appalling state of our rivers and the amount of sewage going into them. It is surprising that, in 2021, there is still quite the quantity of raw, or insufficiently treated, sewage flowing into our rivers.
I very much appreciated the support of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and quite understand his point that it is necessary to have co-operation between England and Wales over the rivers that flow between the two countries, and his acceptance that it would be entirely in order to establish a UK standard. I thank the Minister for his comments, and I was pleased to hear that, in the other place, Rebecca Pow has made a further commitment that the existing regulations will be enforced where required. But I again ask the Minister to consider whether it would be appropriate to establish a UK standard. He did sort of refer to that when talking about metrics, but if he has doubts about the existing European standard then we should surely try to devise our own.
I would be grateful if the Minister would be prepared to discuss with me a way of making targets for water quality a higher priority. There are many aspects of water that need to be improved, nevertheless I am surprised that improving water quality is not yet considered a higher priority than it currently is. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
We come now to the group of amendments headed by Amendment 5. Anyone wishing to press that amendment or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 5
Lord Blencathra
“(c) nature;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to change the word ‘biodiversity’ to ‘nature’ and is designed to have a debate in principle on changing the term throughout the bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests as on the register. This afternoon I will, if I may, speak from a seated position—I had a long train journey and the old legs are a bit ropier than normal.
My amendments in this group all seek to change the word “biodiversity” in the Bill to the word “nature”. The only two amendments in the group for proper consideration in this debate are Amendment 5, which changes the wording in Clause 1, and Amendment 261, which attempts to give a definition of nature, so that my noble friend the Minister cannot say that nature is a completely different concept from biodiversity and that it would totally destabilise the Bill if we made this change. In this Bill we can define nature any way we like, just as we can define biodiversity, and it need not create any legal lacuna or new obligation.
The other amendments numbered in the 200s are merely examples in the Bill of where “nature” could be used instead of “biodiversity”. I counted over 140 uses of the word “biodiversity”, most of them—more than 100—in Schedule 14, but I have picked just a few examples so that we can have this debate in principle. Therefore, I do not want my noble friend the Minister to waste his time in the wind-up going through all those other examples and explaining why they are technically wrong.
Why change “nature” to “biodiversity”? What am I getting at? It really is quite simple: everyone talks about nature and not about biodiversity. All recent polls and studies show that the vast majority of people want to get closer to nature, to relate to it, and to get out and about and into it more. If you asked them if they wanted to relate to biodiversity, they would think that you were talking about zoo animals. “Biodiversity” has the flavour of a technical, scientific term, more applicable to wild animals than flowers, trees, butterflies and the landscape—at least in the minds of the majority of ordinary people.
The authoritative People and Nature Survey undertaken each month by Natural England found that 61% of people said that they felt that they were part of nature and 87% said that being in nature made them happy. A recent survey quoted by the BBC reveals that most people think that biodiversity is something to do with washing powder. We might scoff at that, and of course colleagues in Parliament, Defra, Natural England, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and all wildlife organisations know what biodiversity is—but we do not count. We need to appeal to the tens of millions of people who are not officials, scientists or policymakers and who have a much more vague idea of what nature is—but know it when they see it, and want more of it.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, with whom I agree in every respect on this subject, that legislation should be precise and intelligible. That is what this is about. If I may give a short history lesson—only a couple of minutes—I will describe my first encounter with the phrase “precise and intelligible” in 1975 in the House of Commons, when a report headed Preparation of Legislation was presented by Sir David Renton, then the MP for Huntingdonshire. He never stopped talking about that report, and when I arrived in your Lordships’ House exactly 20 years ago, he was on the Benches opposite, still talking about the report Preparation of Legislation. He took Bills and amendments apart, and the number of times we had changes because of his scrutiny was enormous. I have also looked at the 2013 Parliamentary Counsel report, When Laws Become Too Complex. This is what this amendment is about: making legislation precise and intelligible. Most of what we have passed is not. This is a chance to actually make sure that it is.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Words matter; so too does the meaning that we give to them. That is especially so where targets are being set that will influence policy in a matter as far-reaching as the environment. That is why the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Randall of Uxbridge, were right to bring forward these amendments so that we can consider whether the choice of the word “biodiversity” to identify one of the priority areas in Clause 1(3) was well made, or whether it should be replaced by the word “nature”, as is being suggested.
I wish to concentrate on the use of words in this clause. I say nothing about the wording of Clauses 95 and 96 and others, except that it seems to make sense to follow whatever the choice is for Clause 1 when deciding what is right for those other clauses too. For me, the choice in Clause 1(3) should be guided by two things: the context, and the meaning of the word “biodiversity” itself.
The context for the choice of words in Clause 1(3) is created by the wording of Clause 1(1). We are told there that the long-term targets that the Secretary of State must have in mind relate to “the natural environment”. That suggests to me that when we come to Clause 1(3), we should expect to find, if I can put it this way, a list of subspecies within the natural environment rather than a repetition of the parent concept itself, embraced by the word “nature”. The word “nature”—the parent concept—embraces everything that comprises the phenomena of the natural world or, as Clause 1(1) puts it, of “the natural environment”. That suggests that we need something more specific and precise to serve the purpose of Clause 1(3), which is to identify the priority areas within that environment. The question then, therefore, is whether “biodiversity” achieves something for the identification of a priority area that “nature” would not achieve.
I was surprised to find, when I was consulting my dictionaries, how recent the word “biodiversity” is in the English language. Everyone talks about nature, said the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and he is absolutely right: it is so much in common use, and “biodiversity”, as the dictionaries indicated to me, is not in common use in that way. It is not even mentioned, let alone defined, in the editions of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary that I have, which were published in the 1990s. It is a mark of our increasing awareness of the importance of the variety and variability of life on earth and its preservation that we have created this portmanteau word to describe it. “Diversity” is what we are talking about when we use this word. The prefix “bio” makes it clear that we are using that word in the context of the natural environment in all its aspects which, of course, is the context in which we are using it here. In that context, it is no exaggeration to say that diversity is what keeps the environment alive. It is absolutely right to concentrate on diversity as a priority area.
I suggest, therefore, that the word “biodiversity”, although not so widely used as “nature”, is the one to use because it is more precisely targeted on that aspect of our environment. It achieves that much more than “nature”. It reaches out across the entirety of the ecosystem, on which the natural environment depends, and the diversity that gives it its life. With great respect to the two noble Lords, I believe that it is the right word to use here in this Bill.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and also the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; I well remember the late Sir David Renton, as he was in the other place, or Lord Renton, as he became in this one. He was an absolute terrier and was determined to try to ensure that all legislation was intelligible to those to whom it applied.
That really is the underlying reason why my noble friend Lord Blencathra has introduced this very interesting and probing amendment. We say again and again during this debate that this is a landmark Bill. It is indeed, and it has to bear the test of time: it has to be an Act of Parliament that becomes familiar to all those to whom it applies, which is virtually every citizen in our land. It must be an Act of Parliament that is understood. It is entirely right that my noble friend Lord Blencathra introduced this amendment so that we can debate, at an early stage of the Bill, what we are really talking about.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and my noble friend Lord Cormack that legislation has to be precise and intelligible. If we are to take the public with us, which we need to on a Bill as complicated and as detailed as this one, it has to resonate with them, so there is a lot to be said for what my noble friend Lord Blencathra has suggested in his amendment.
However, I am slightly troubled on a couple of fronts. In answering the debate at Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister said:
“As for my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s proposal to change ‘biodiversity’ to ‘nature’, he makes an important point, but the trouble is that those two terms are not exactly the same”.—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1308.]
He then gave an example about the dreaded Sitka spruce, but he did not tell us why they were not the same and what the implications were for the Bill if we were to go down the route suggested by noble friend Lord Blencathra of half the time using “nature” and half the time using “biodiversity” depending on where it is in the Bill. When he said that, I was immediately sceptical, thinking, “Here comes a lawyers’ charter. If we’re using ‘biodiversity’ in one part of the Bill and ‘nature’ in another, the lawyers are going to have a field day”. I wish my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern were joining in this debate, because he would help us.
I go instead to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who analysed this matter in some detail and came down in favour of “biodiversity”. I am sitting back on the fence where I started, because I was persuaded one way and the legal opinion has pushed me back in the other. I want to hear from my noble friend the Minister what the difference is between biodiversity and nature. If we could get that difference, perhaps we could reconcile it so that we got a Bill that was intelligible.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Blencathra on being so industrious in coming up with such an imaginative way to put forward something that he obviously feels very passionate about. However, I support my noble friend the Minister, who I hope will go on to explain why we have settled on “biodiversity”. I support everything said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, about why “biodiversity” has a specific meaning. We should also look at the history of “biodiversity”. There are a number of international conventions with which I am sure my noble friend Lord Blencathra, particularly wearing his hat with Natural England, will be familiar. Is he proposing that we now try to change all the international conventions which originally referred, even more confusingly, to “biological diversity”? I would put forward “biodiversity” as a compromise between “biological diversity” and “nature” or “the natural environment”, because it has a specific meaning and we have subscribed to a number of international conventions. For those who will have to follow what is asked of them, “biodiversity” has that specific meaning, which I am sure my noble friend will explain.
I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in saying that we need a list of species or a better understanding of what is being asked. I am sure my noble friend will explain that when he moves the series of government amendments later today. I accept “biodiversity” as a compromise, but we need greater clarification of the list of species—flora and fauna—which are to be protected.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, with a degree of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve. We all want to make legislation more simple and able to be understood by members of the public, but in this instance, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. To change the name in the legislation at this stage would cause a level of disruption, because we already have international agreements that refer to “biodiversity”. The Dasgupta report also referred to it.
There is a simple difference between nature and biodiversity. According to my dictionary definition, nature covers all existing systems created at the same time as the earth, whereas biodiversity is the part of nature that is alive, born on a mineral substrate in an earlier geodiversity. Biodiversity provides numerous ecosystem services that are crucial to human well-being at present and in the future. Longer-term changes in climate affect the viability and health of ecosystems, influencing shifts in the distribution of plants, pathogens, animals and even human settlements. Biodiversity loss has negative effects on several aspects of human well-being, such as food security, vulnerability to natural disasters, energy security and access to clean water and raw materials. It also affects human health, social relations and freedom of choice.
Quite simply, through this legislation, we need to protect our living biodiversity. The inclusion of a target-setting framework is a welcome part of the Bill, and something that has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The long-term nature of environmental matters makes this all particularly important. Environmental improvement cannot be achieved over the short timeframe of a political cycle. We need to ensure that this Environment Bill provides an opportunity for the UK to become a world leader in the fight against all forms of pollution and biodiversity loss and in mitigating the impact of the climate emergency. The litmus test for all of us in the Lords is does changing “biodiversity” to “nature” in this Bill strengthen and toughen its provisions, does it weaken existing legal protections or does it make any difference?
I believe this Bill must turn the tide on nature’s decline, biodiversity decline and the climate emergency. It must transform the way we manage waste, protect our precious water resources and all the other aspects. So, I think at this late stage, it is best to keep to the term “biodiversity”, while I fully understand and appreciate the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, I was much elated to read my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendments. I completely agree with him that “biodiversity” is one of the worst examples of a pseudointellectual word that most people do not understand and would never use in speech. I think my noble friend is right that, in the main, it would be much better if we used the easily comprehensible word “nature”, on which there is universal agreement on its meaning. I completely agree that it is highly desirable that the Bill should use language with which the public identifies.
It is interesting that, in their response to The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review the Government refer to
“nature, and the biodiversity that underpins it”.
This suggests that biodiversity and nature are not quite the same thing because one underpins the other, but even in a note to the preface to the review, Professor Dasgupta writes that
“the terms Nature, natural capital, the natural environment, the biosphere, and the natural world are used interchangeably.”
The Cambridge Dictionary website informs me that biodiversity means:
“the number and types of plants and animals that exist in a particular area or in the world generally, or the problem of protecting this”.
The first part of this definition sounds to me to be the same as nature, but then I am confused by the notion of protecting it. The “bio” of biodiversity is derived from the Greek bios, meaning life, and all the varieties of animal and plant life on the planet are indeed diverse.
So, although academics may disagree that the simple word “nature” is inadequate, I am not convinced that there is any material difference in meaning. I agree with my noble friend that we should change the word “biodiversity” to “nature” wherever possible. My noble friend’s Amendment 203 changes the “general biodiversity objective” of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to the “general nature objective”. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether that Act was the first in which the term “biodiversity” was used and whether he agrees that it would be much better if our law was written in language that people can understand.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, suggested that “biodiversity” is the correct word because it is broader, but I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord persuaded me that “nature” is narrower than the whole diversity of life. I also worry for the future of the word “diversity” which increasingly carries connotations of gender and race. For all these reasons I support what my noble friend Lord Blencathra is trying to do.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for initiating it. I think it has been very useful and I truly appreciate the passion with which he desires to see public engagement with, and understanding of, this Bill. I very much appreciate that. A number of noble Lords have said we need this Bill to be both precise and intelligible, and when we draw on the legal side of things I am very much influenced, as I often am, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who suggested that in legal terms “nature” would not achieve what “biodiversity” would.
I am going to bring a biological consideration, that being my intellectual foundation to this, and may complicate this debate further by pointing out that where we sit right now at this very moment is, in one definition, a part of nature—we are human animals and the rest of the animal species on this planet are non-human animals—as it is something we created. It is an ecosystem we have created. However, I am not going to go too far down that road, as I fear that may be a debate more fit for the Bishops’ Bar when it re-opens than this Chamber today.
I want to raise the issue that the noble Lord’s amendment brings to the fore, which is the definition of “biodiversity” and, specifically, to explore further what the Government’s understanding of biodiversity is. I can address some questions that have been raised about where this term come from. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, suggested that some things are called “biological diversity” and some things are called “biodiversity”. The term “biodiversity” was coined in 1985, and it is a contraction of “biological diversity”. Without being a lawyer, I do not think there is a legal contradiction between using those two terms interchangeably.
What is not always sufficiently understood is that biodiversity is not just having lots of species. There is sometimes a feeling that we are protecting diversity when there is this really rare moth, and there are three reserves where we are saving it, so that is all right because we are saving biodiversity. If we look at what biodiversity is in a much broader sense, it starts at the level of genes. If you look at a magnificent, enormous murmuration of starlings, should you still be lucky enough to have such a thing, or a wonderful flock of sparrows—ditto—then, although it cannot be seen, in the depths there is great genetic diversity. It is something that keeps that species healthy, and if you get population numbers down to a tiny level a very important part of biodiversity is lost. The interchange of genes is lost if you have a series of isolated populations.
It is really important to have the species to have the genes, but biodiversity is also complete ecosystems. These are systems, such as savannah and woodland, that have developed over billions of years, have complex interrelationships and interrelate to their physical environment. That is all biodiversity as well. This is what has made the earth habitable over billions of years and is what some people call Gaia. To look at this in a way that those of a more literary bent in your Lordships’ House might find familiar, this is a library of life. It a library of ideas and a library of ways of interrelating. It has been said that what we are doing by destroying biodiversity is burning through the library of life. So, I would really like to see, perhaps in the Minister’s answer, or perhaps later in writing, a lot more from the Government about their understanding of what protecting biodiversity means. They must make sure that the target for biodiversity—assuming the Bill goes through in its current form—really addresses the different levels and ways in which we need to understand biodiversity, and does not boil down to “Well, we have three reserves for this rare moth and that will do.”
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 5, to which I added my name. It is always good to follow my noble friend in his wise words. I have to say, though, that I rather feel out of my depth in this debate. I thought that it was going to be quite a simple subject, but I should have thought that we have such experts in your Lordships' House. I have been listening to the legal side of things, which I have little understanding of, while making law, and the excellent speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on a much more scientific, biological aspect.
I come at this with a view that we want to make things simple. We are going to come, in the group following the next, on to a connection with nature. That is my biggest concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that the word “biodiversity” arrived in 1985. I was not a young man, necessarily, when it first appeared, and I had been used to using other words. I have been involved in this environmental field as an amateur for all my life, and I accept “biodiversity”—I use it myself—but I am not sure that the people we want to connect more with nature do understand it. I would say to those noble Lords who have mentioned international things that the European Union introduced Natura 2000; it did not call it “Biodiversitas 2000” or anything else. “Natura” and “nature” have their place. I would regard myself as an amateur naturalist; I do not know how you would say I am an “amateur biodiversity person”.
I think this has been a very useful debate. I end up more confused, though that is a position I often find myself in, listening to debates. But I have to say that there is a real need for us to make sure that our fellow citizens understand that the environment is about what they hold dear—and that is nature. When I was at school, we had nature study; we did not have biodiversity study. But I admit that I am not in the first flush of youth.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, one could argue that what is good enough for Sir David Attenborough is good enough for this Bill. Sir David’s 2020 TV programme “Extinction”, in which he talked about biodiversity, was watched by 4.5 million viewers on its premier. Those people, and the millions more who have watched it subsequently, will have some idea of what biodiversity is.
Although I do not support this amendment for the reasons that my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead so clearly articulated, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for tabling the amendment, because it provides me with an opportunity, following the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, to ask the Minister to clarify precisely what the Government mean when they talk about biodiversity. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead said, words do matter. If the Government are to maintain the term “biodiversity” in this Bill, which I hope they will, please could they explain what it actually means?
I am now going to get a little bit technical. Ecologists recognise a number of different, but interrelated, meanings of the word “biodiversity”. At its simplest, it refers to what is called “species richness”—simply the number of species inhabiting a defined geographical area, such as England. A more sophisticated variant of species richness takes into account the relative abundance of different species. On this measure, an area populated by one extremely common species and, say, five very rare ones will be less biodiverse than if all six species were roughly equally abundant.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has already said, biodiversity can also include genetic diversity within a species. For instance, one might be particularly interested in preserving subspecies that are unique to this island, such as the native pied wagtail, motacilla alba Yarrelli. Furthermore, biodiversity might encompass the genetic distinctiveness of species, by placing a premium on species with no close living relatives on the planet, or on endemic species, such as eudarcia Richardsoni, a micro-moth found only in Dorset.
Finally, biodiversity might encompass the diversity of habitats, such as woodland, heath, peatbog and intertidal marshes, found within a geographical area. Many ecologists distinguish between what they call alpha diversity—species richness within a habitat—and beta diversity, which is diversity between habitats.
I hope that the Minister, in his response, or afterwards in writing, will explain what the Government mean when they talk about biodiversity. At the same time, it would be helpful if he could explain the difference between biodiversity and species abundance, as introduced in Amendment 22, which we will debate later.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has certainly been an interesting discussion around the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to change the wording of the Bill to use the term “nature” instead of “biodiversity”. I can understand why he would want to propose this change, as it is an easier concept for many people to grasp and understand, as many noble Lords have said during our discussion. However, the Minister did explain in his winding-up speech on Second Reading that the two terms are not exactly the same. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referenced the example that the Minister gave:
“Planting a Sitka spruce monoculture might give us more nature, but it would not give us more biodiversity”—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1308].
A number of noble Lords have talked about definitions and the definition of “biodiversity” as opposed to the definition of “nature”. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for providing us so much information. I have learned an awful lot more in this debate than I was expecting. A number of noble Lords have looked at dictionary definitions, so I thought I would add to this by having a look at what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say. It describes “nature” as
“The phenomena of the physical world collectively; esp. plants, animals, and other features and products of the earth itself, as opposed to humans and human creations”
whereas—I would be interested to discuss this further with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, at some point—the dictionary describes “biodiversity” as
“the variety of plant and animal life”.
So these things are different, and my thinking is that the Oxford definition seems to show that “nature” is a broader concept and “biodiversity” fits within that. Therefore, I am not quite sure how helpful Amendment 261 will be.
This is a really important Bill, and, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said, clarity as to exactly what is meant by the wording and terminology in this Bill—and in all legislation—is essential to avoid confusion and potential legal challenge. I am sure that the Minister will be able to provide us with more detail on the wording used and the way that the decisions have come, but noble Lords have requested more explanation of exactly what is meant in the Bill by “biodiversity” and what is going to be demanded of improvements to biodiversity as we go through implementing what the Environment Bill is looking to do.
In short, I have enjoyed listening to the debate, but we are happy to retain the use of “biodiversity” in the wording of the Bill.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his amendments. It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful speech on them by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Like my noble friend, we want people to understand and engage in nature, but it is also important to increase recognition of and engagement with the term “biodiversity”. It is an internationally recognised term that is gaining popularity with the public, parliamentarians and beyond, not least as a consequence of the extraordinary work of Sir David Attenborough, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, pointed out. It confers a direction of travel toward greater diversity, which we want everyone to fully support and engage with.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed out, and this point was echoed extremely interestingly and thoughtfully by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Ritchie, “nature” is a more expansive term than biodiversity, often taken to include non-living elements, and is potentially more open to interpretation. It is perfectly possible to enhance nature with limited or no value for biodiversity. Many monocultures—for example, a green grass valley; I am using a different example from the one that I used last time—are considered beautiful examples of a natural landscape, and “nature” can have a high amenity value. If we are to boost biodiversity, sometimes it will mean moving away from simplistic ideas of what nature should be, and thinking scientifically about how to improve the diversity of living things.
In response to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I confirm on my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s behalf—if I may—that he is not proposing to renegotiate or replace the international conventions, as I understand it from his introductory speech. However, I want to provide a more detailed interpretation of what we mean by “biodiversity” and why it is important. I do this in response to a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lord Caithness and Lord Trenchard, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Hayman. The Convention on Biological Diversity, which is being hosted in China at the end of this year and is a massively important moment for biodiversity, defines biodiversity as
“the variability amongst living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.”
It is important that variability and diversity should be conserved and the benefits for people secured. The UK is playing a leading role in negotiating an ambitious global framework for biodiversity under that convention, and setting targets and policies for biodiversity helps to demonstrate and further that alignment.
From a more technical perspective, the Bill applies the terms “nature” and “biodiversity” for specific purposes. Associated guidance and regulations will make that clear. We certainly want these measures to benefit all aspects of nature for wildlife and other environmental objectives. Substituting “nature” for “biodiversity” in the Bill would risk creating confusion about the purposes of the measures, especially where “biodiversity” is already a well-established term. Measures such as the biodiversity duty or biodiversity net gain are already established and understood policies, being strengthened through the Bill, and our aim should be to improve their functioning, not create confusion with new terminology.
I hope this does not sound facetious but there is an implied assumption within the amendment that people en masse are going to devour the Bill and base their understanding on the Act that we hope it will become. It feels to me that what really matters is delivering the measures in the Bill and the wider communications that will support it. I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that I am not convinced it is the Act itself that will take people with us; rather, it will be the delivery of good policy, good solutions and the wider comms that we all—not just the Government—are going to have to engage in to advance this agenda.
I reassure my local friend Lord Blencathra that I share and understand his vision and the motivation behind his amendment, as I think does every noble Lord, but nevertheless I ask him to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has indicated that he wishes to speak.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving a definition. He then said it was going to come in regulations. Would it not be better if it were in the Bill?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am not sure it is necessary to add the definition to the Bill itself, but I will certainly consider my noble friend’s comment carefully as we move through the Bill’s various stages.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My apologies, Lord Deputy Chairman; I did not realise you would be calling the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
I am grateful to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken—those who have supported me, those who are sitting on the fence and those who are opposed. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that if he goes further and looks at the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel guidelines in detail, he will find that there is an instruction there to government departments to write in simple language, and what I am suggesting here follows that OPC instruction.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made an important contribution that swayed a number of noble Lords. I looked at changing the word “nature” at the start of Clause 1 but then opted to change it in Clause 1(3). I was in two minds about that but then I thought that I wanted the debate on principle, so we should have it early on in the Bill. I accept what he said about the list in Clause 1(3) containing more specific examples of nature. He said that “biodiversity” was the right word to be used in the Bill but I am suggesting, and I have said so all along, that we can define “nature” to be the right word in the Bill and we can make it as specific or general as we wish.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cormack for his attempt at a definition, “nature in all its diversity”. I am not sure it is right but he is simply making the point that it is possible to define this.
My noble friend Lord Caithness said that he was back to sitting on the fence. I am too; I have a leg on either side of it. I am not suggesting that we have “nature” only or “biodiversity” only; I am suggesting that in some parts of the Bill, where it is safe and sensible to do so, we have “nature” and in other bits we have “biodiversity”.
My noble friend the Minister has already pointed out to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that I was not proposing to change our international conventions, not even the one that I negotiated myself. As a new Minister I was sent to Rio in 1992 with strict instructions: “You’ll be there for 16 days, Mr Maclean MP. You will not agree to anything until John Major comes out and signs up for everything that you’ve got to resist.” I had to sign, or was party to negotiating, the first Convention on Biological Diversity.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, that there is no need for confusion. It depends on how we define this, and I say to her that the word “nature” would strengthen the Bill.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Trenchard for his strong support. If Dasgupta sees the terms as interchangeable, we should change “biodiversity” in the Bill wherever possible.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. He also said that we should make things simple. The next group of amendments but one is about connecting people with nature. The word “nature” does that but “biodiversity” does not.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, says that the Government need to define biodiversity. If the Government cannot define biodiversity in the Bill, how are the public to understand or relate to it? The Government are capable of defining “natural environment” in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, quoted dictionary definitions. What does that dictionary say about “natural environment”? The phrase “natural environment” is not defined in the Bill according to the Oxford English Dictionary; it is defined in a way that the Government have decided. If the Government can define “natural environment”, they can define “nature”.
My noble friend the Minister said that “nature” can be a more expansive term. It can, and if it is not defined it will be much more expansive. The phrase “natural environment” could be a highly expansive term—indeed, some of us have suggestions to expand it a bit more—but the Government have defined it in the Bill and, if you can define “natural environment”, you can define “nature”.
As far as “biodiversity net gain” is concerned, my noble friend picked one example which might confuse business and industry, and developers may worry that “nature net gain” is not the same as “biodiversity net gain”. If that is the case and we cannot explain it, let us not change that bit. I have resiled from my initial position when I wrote to my noble friend two weeks ago that we can change every word. I know that we cannot; it would not be sensible. It could cause legal problems and confusion. Let us not try to change the word where it is not sensible to do so but change it everywhere else.
My noble friend seemed to conclude by saying, “Let’s use biodiversity in the Bill, but out there we will be talking about nature; it’s how we relate to it and how we deliver it”. It seems a bit odd to say, “Well, let’s just keep this among ourselves. We experts who know all about it and we boffins will use biodiversity in the Bill, but we won’t use it out there among the public. For that, we will use ‘nature’”.
I think there is still some merit in what I say, although it has not commanded the majority support of the noble Lords who have spoken today. I would like my noble friend to consider with me whether we can change the word in some instances where it is safe to do so. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 6. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 6
Lord Teverson
“(c) terrestrial biodiversity;(ca) marine biodiversity;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that there is a long-term biodiversity target both on-shore and off-shore.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that in this Bill the Government are committed to targets on biodiversity and the areas that the Bill covers, including waste. There are only four areas listed, which makes choosing targets a pretty challenging task. I look forward to the debate on this group of amendments, where many different options have been put forward. I recognise that this is not straightforward. Unlike climate change, where we can have a couple of metrics—for example, the proportion of grams of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, or look at emissions as a whole in metric tonnes—biodiversity is far more difficult, and I recognise that. It is not necessarily easy for anybody, let alone the Government, to choose the right targets.
However, within the Bill there is a distinct lack of recognition of the maritime area—the seas around our island nation. Not to put emphasis on the seas and oceans, our EEZ and our territorial seas, is a major weakness in the Bill. I have talked to the Minister about this, and I thank him for his conversations. He will point out that “water” is used very generally in the Bill, but it is usually in a context that does not really include oceans and the sea around us. I congratulate the Government on their blue belt initiative for our overseas territories, but I sometimes wish that the focus on our overseas territories was equal to the focus we have on our own seas in the United Kingdom.
I recognise that this is primarily an English Bill, but let me talk in terms of the UK at the moment Not only are we an island nation, but the territorial area of the United Kingdom is just under a quarter of a million square kilometres. If you look at the seas over which we have some jurisdiction, it is three to four times that level—almost a million square kilometres. That is the EEZ plus our territorial seas. Under UNCLOS we have responsibility for those seas beyond just the 12-mile limit, and I think those are important. I will come back to some of these issues later in our proceedings.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 10. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Carrington and Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for signing it.
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. We spent quite a long time on the Fisheries Act, as it now is. I think I would say “marine” rather than “maritime” as a concept—“maritime” has more connotations to do with ships and so forth. But “marine” and “terrestrial” also join together, and of course, there are the shores. This issue could be solved, quite frankly, by my noble friend the Minister making it quite clear exactly what is covered by this.
Amendment 10 deals with light pollution, which has increased from a variety of sources, including domestic residences, public infrastructure—particularly lighting along roads and motorways—and industrial activity, such as energy infrastructure. Much of the earth’s population is affected by light pollution. Some 80% of the world’s population now live under sky glow and nearly every European cannot experience a natural night sky from where they live. I have not seen the night sky properly where I live—except possibly in a power cut—but when I occasionally go up to Norfolk, along the coast I am blessed to be able to see the night sky in all its glory.
In recent years, evidence of the impact of light pollution on species and ecosystems has grown and consolidated. Increased artificial light at night is directly linked to measurable negative impacts on energy consumption, obviously, human health and wildlife such as bats, birds, insects and plants. Unnecessary artificial light increases financial costs and contributes to greenhouse emissions. Light pollution should be treated with the same disdain with which we treat all other forms of pollution.
Among other organisations that I belong to, I am a member of Buglife, a charity devoted to the protection of insects. I am pleased to say that this week is National Insect Week. Studies from Germany suggest that a third of insects attracted to street lights and other fixed light sources will die. This results in the death of an estimated 100 billion insects in Germany every summer. Light pollution is reducing nocturnal pollinator visits to flowers by 62%, in some areas. Again, to show my slightly nerdy side, from time to time I put out a moth trap, but mine is not as successful as those of some of my friends elsewhere, who do not have the same light amount of light coming in from other sources. We know that moths are attracted to light, but that it confuses some.
Glow-worms use luminescence to attract prey and mates. Artificial light can affect their ability to do both. Evidence shows a decline in the abundance of glow-worm populations with increased proximity to artificial light.
Birds that migrate or hunt at night navigate by moonlight and starlight. Artificial light can cause them to fly towards lit areas. Recent research shows more birds migrating over urban, rather than rural, areas. This deviation from traditional routes can have a significant impact on energy levels during migration and lead them to stop in suboptimal habitats.
The US recognises bird strikes against high-rise buildings as a real problem. In Texas, the former First Lady Laura Bush heads a lights-out campaign, twice a year, to encourage high-rise buildings to switch off their lights, so that they do not kill all these migratory birds. Some of the photographs you see of the carnage caused underneath these high-rise buildings are disturbing.
Artificial lighting can cause many problems for bats, including disrupting roosting and feeding behaviour and their movement through the landscape. In the worst cases, it can directly harm these protected species. As all bats in the UK feed on insects, loss of food sources is also a considerable threat.
For us humans, light pollution is negatively impacting astronomy and our ability to observe the stars. To look up on a cloudless night and see the stars is one of the more uplifting pleasures that we can have from childhood onwards.
Many marine species such as crabs and zooplankton are attracted to artificial lights near the shore, from ports or gas facilities, which can disrupt feeding and life cycles. Many noble Lords will have seen, in one of the more recent David Attenborough programmes, the disturbing sight of turtles coming to shore when they are hatched instead of going out to the sea. They are designed to be attracted to moonlight, but are going towards cafes and restaurants, with all their lights, crossing roads and perishing. This is a real problem.
The British Astronomical Association estimates that 90% of the population of the UK are unable to see the Milky Way from where they live. Evidence shows that light exposure at the wrong time has profound impacts on human circadian rhythm, affecting physical and mental functions. Artificial lighting has been linked to trees bursting their buds more than a week early, a magnitude similar to that predicted for 2 degrees centigrade of global warming.
My amendment aims to set a commitment to act on matters that relate to light pollution currently omitted from the Environment Bill. I hope it ensures that the Government produce targets to reduce levels of light pollution in England. The evidence is clear that light pollution has a significant impact on the normal activity of invertebrates, birds, bats and plants, and that these impacts are more than sufficient to require action. It would be a failure not to address this before we have long-term data and doing so would go against the Government’s draft environmental principles, in particular the precautionary principle, but also the prevention and rectification-at-source principles.
The UK does not yet report on light pollution levels. However, measuring light pollution is simple. Satellite images can be used to establish pollution levels and the CPRE has developed a nine-band classification system that could form the basis for monitoring change. Existing policy on light pollution does not provide sufficient guidance and is not strong enough to tackle its increasing impact. Several countries have introduced national policies on light pollution, such as Germany, France, Mexico, South Korea, Croatia and Slovenia. When I was last in France, I noticed that some villages have the designation “village étoile”, which they relish, because people go to them specifically to see the night sky.
The UK’s Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended, provides local authorities with statutory nuisance powers to address light pollution, but only when harmful to humans or if it “unreasonably and substantially” interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises. I am afraid this has not resulted in a reduction in general light pollution. The National Planning Policy Framework offers little consideration of light pollution. The only reference states:
“Planning policies and decisions should … limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.”
The last comprehensive consideration of the issue by the Government was the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s 2009 report, Artificial Light in the Environment. However, I am afraid that almost none of its recommendations has been implemented.
On national targets, Clause 1 of the Environment Bill provides power for the Secretary of State to “set long-term targets” by regulation, in relation to
“(a) the natural environment, or (b) people’s enjoyment of the natural environment.”
Subsection (2) requires the Secretary of State to set long-term targets in the four priority areas of air quality, water, biodiversity and resource efficiency and waste reduction.
I strongly believe that light pollution should be considered a priority area too, so that the Government are required to set a long-term target to reduce its impact on nature and people’s enjoyment of it. This amendment is designed to achieve that outcome. A national plan intended to prevent, limit and reduce light pollution must include a series of targets and a programme of monitoring. National targets should be set to include no net increase in light pollution and an ambition to increase the number of dark sky reserves.
Finally, I support Amendment 11 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I have my own amendment later in the Bill, Amendment 112, on soil quality, which is as fundamental as anything in the Bill.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. The later one, Amendment 31, concerns the health of our trees and the first, Amendment 12, planting new trees. It requires the Government to put before Parliament an annual report on the progress made towards achieving the initial target of planting new trees.
The extent and health of what is left of our forests, woodland and trees is a matter of deep concern. We all know the essential role trees play in absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby making a vital contribution to slowing down climate change. A mature tree absorbs carbon dioxide at the rate of 48 pounds per year. In one year, an acre of forest can absorb twice the CO2 produced by the average car’s annual mileage. We know in our personal lives how fundamental our trees are for physical health, aesthetic satisfaction and our spiritual well-being.
The Committee on Climate Change has said 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. At the moment, the Government are missing their tree-planting targets by 40 years. If we continue at the current slow rate of tree planting, the Government’s own 2050 targets will not be met until 2091. As those figures show, the number of trees planted each year needs to be very significantly increased.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this group of amendments is like some sort of dream list that any environment Bill worthy of its name should contain, so I very much hope that the Government will listen to all noble Lords on this. I will speak on only two amendments. First, I signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on marine, which he explained extremely well. All I can say, in less parliamentary language, is that it is plain daft not to include it. How can you not include another biosphere that is so important, not only for fishing and other things but generally for the well-being of anybody who ever goes down to the seaside?
I will speak specifically to my Amendment 32, which is about the controversial issue of reducing meat and dairy consumption. I eat both, so I am well aware of how difficult it is, but I have tailored my diet to reduce substantially my intake. I have also tabled this amendment because it was a clear recommendation from the Climate Change Committee to make a significant reduction in our carbon footprint. Sadly, and proving yet again the inadequacy of the scrutiny bodies in having any binding power over the Government, the recommendations have been ignored. Farming accounts for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK and, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said in publishing the committee’s report:
“Changing the way we use our land is critical to delivering the UK’s Net Zero target.”
Looking globally, the UN predicts that global red meat consumption will double by 2050, which will be a disaster for the climate and ecology. Animal husbandry can be part of the solution to climate change, as good-practice grass-fed livestock can be an important part of building soil health and sequestering carbon. However, the levels of meat currently demanded in our western diets are simply incompatible with these sustainable practices. It is time for the Government to be quite brave and bold and start facing up to this reality. The Prime Minister should use his political capital—however much he has left—to begin this conversation and start this road to a more sustainable diet. It will be a test: is he really the skilled communicator that he and his allies believe? If so, I would like to set him a challenge: persuading the public that modifying our diets is an important step towards net zero.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, it is difficult to speak to an amendment that has not yet been spoken to by its proposer. I therefore ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether she could make a note of this; we had exactly the same problem during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, which we finally got sorted out. The speakers’ lists should start off with all those who have amendments consequential to the first amendment. I want to speak to Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but she will speak after me. This is nonsense and it does not help the Committee—I am very glad to see some nods around the Chamber from all sides. I therefore hope that my noble friend will make certain that we get a decent speakers’ list in future.
I support what I believe the noble Baroness will say on Amendment 11, just as she supported me on my Amendment 111, which also refers to soil, so we are as one. Soil is critical to the environment. You cannot get good habitats without proper soil. Unless soil is one of the priorities, we will never get there in the first place. There is a lot more to be said about soil later, but at this stage I just want to support the noble Baroness in her amendment.
On the amendments spoken to by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, he raises some very important points but this also shows the difficulty of having targets, particularly where you have plants and species that can be affected by disease and climate change. It will be very difficult to set a target for tree health, because it can change in a matter of years, as the noble and right reverend Lord said about the ash disease. If you set a target and then have to change it, targets become increasingly meaningless. If we are to have targets, they should have a meaning. I am therefore sceptical. I understand what he is trying to do and part of me supports it, but part of me says that it has to work on the ground—we cannot just tick a box and say that we have done targets, and then keep on changing them. We changed the biodiversity 2020 targets because nobody was going to meet them. It brings the whole concept of targets into disrepute.
The noble and right reverend Lord also mentioned the tree-planting target. I have said before that it is not just tree planting that matters but the maintenance of trees. It is terribly easy to plant trees; I planted lots of trees in the year before I went to agricultural college and I hope that some of them have been clear felled by now—they should have been. However, it is disease and animal destruction of trees, and the planting up after the planting and the support for those trees to grow into mature trees, that really matter. I would rather plant fewer trees and get them all up to maturity than plant x plus 10% when 20% will die, as we end up with a minus quantity. The thrust of the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment is in the right direction, but again, it is about how it will work in practice; it is the practicalities of the Bill that will make it a success or not.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I welcome this small group of amendments. I will speak in particular to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. He has been very kind in supporting my later amendment along the same lines, Amendment 113. I say to my noble friend the Minister that I find it extraordinary that we have this omission whereby the marine environment, marine mammals, marine flora and marine fauna are excluded from the remit of the Bill. In responding to a question at Oral Questions last week, my noble friend the Minister accepted:
“In relation to the sustainability of inshore fisheries, there is undoubtedly a tension between those activities and new wind farms”.—[Official Report, 16/6/21; col. 1886.]
If we are not going to embrace and try to resolve those tensions in the context of this Bill, what mechanism will we use?
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the evidence we took in the EU Environment Sub-Committee on the ecology of the North Sea. It enabled us to look in some depth at the cumulative impact, as I think it is called, of these rather regrettable tendencies that are building up. It was referred to as the “urbanisation” of the seas, particularly the North Sea, with this plethora of new offshore wind farms growing up in a very short period of time without any concept or research being done—we will debate that later—on what the impact will be on the other uses of that part of the North Sea, such as inshore fisheries, which I just referred to, and shipping.
Nor has research been done on the impact on marine mammals both in the construction phase, with the noise and pollution that will inevitably be caused by a major event such as the construction of an offshore wind farm, and in its operation. I find it overwhelming that there has been no research as to why we are seeing dolphins, whales and other marine mammals banking on our shores with increased regularity—even in the River Thames most recently. I am sure that it has something to do with the sonic boom sent out by these offshore wind farms. It is a constant murmur on the seabed, which must be a distraction and cause some pain to marine mammals. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and that it will be added to—or else some very good reasons must be given as to why there is no recognition in the Bill of the maritime area and the contents of marine ecology.
Like other noble Lords, I support a number of other amendments in this group. Soil quality is extremely important; we will hear about that in a moment. I always offer a word of caution to those like the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who is looking to increase the planting of new trees. We must be extremely careful and approach where these trees are going to be planted very cautiously. I personally would like to see the creation of more peat bogs. It gives us a sense of the concept of time when we appreciate that it takes 200 years to create a peat bog, but I understand that the effects can also be replicated through the building of mini-dams and bunds, which should also be looked favourably upon.
For the reasons I have rehearsed before, my hesitation about encouraging the planting of new trees—they do have a role to play, as we have seen with the Slowing the Flow at Pickering pilot project on flood prevention and alleviation—is that, if grown in the wrong places, trees can actually contribute to flooding. That is a reason to be cautious. Also, only landowners and not tenant farmers can benefit from the planting of trees in any commercial way; they will therefore not benefit from this.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, realises that I hold her in the greatest respect and affection, but I part company with her on this attack on livestock farmers who face all sorts of onslaughts at the moment, including from the Government’s live transport provisions both domestically in this country and externally. I am sure that she and I can have a little private chat offline and reach some agreement on her amendment. This is an interesting group of amendments looking at all sorts of ways in which we can benefit, but I particularly lend my support to Amendment 6.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 11 in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I will endorse the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; I apologise for speaking in advance of them. I will also comment on Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
I declare my interests as recorded on the register. Specifically, I chair the Cawood Group, which has a large soil-testing facility, so I have a commercial interest in the subject; I am a former chair of the Meat and Livestock Commission; and I was a beef and sheep farmer until two years ago.
On Amendment 11, I endorse the importance of soil health and that soil quality should be included on the face of the Bill as a priority area. As I am sure the Minister will agree, the quality of our soil is a matter of deep concern. The degrading of soil is a worldwide problem with huge consequences for the natural environment. As a soil scientist at Rothamsted Research told me many years ago, once soil has been completely degraded, it cannot be recreated. Its loss can be permanent, with all the consequences that might lead to. We often use “fundamental” rather loosely but, as far as soil is concerned, its quality is of fundamental importance. Without healthy soil, our ability to sustain ourselves, have healthy ecosystems and biodiversity and sustain the entire natural world will be impossible, so it is rather odd that it is not included as a priority in the Bill—especially as it was given significant importance in the Government’s 25-year environment plan. Understanding the health of our soil is crucial if we are to continue on the journey towards more sustainable agricultural production and to capture its carbon sequestration potential, since the organic matter content of soil varies enormously. I hope that the Minister will accept this hugely important small amendment.
On Amendment 32, which is also included in this group, I am sorry but, rather like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I must inform the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that I cannot support this amendment. Perhaps we should all join and have a drink afterwards when we can. First, let me say that the idea that the Government will control what we are allowed to eat by regulation would take the nanny state into new territory entirely. So far, successive Governments have failed to compel consumers to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, so their record of managing consumer diets is not a great success story. Obesity continues to spiral out of control; the Government have a huge enough challenge trying to get to grips with that without trying to intrude on the eating of meat and dairy products. I cannot believe that any Government, particularly a Conservative one, would dare to impose such a policy.
Secondly, the amendment bases the regulation of meat and dairy products solely on the emission of methane when we now know that its impact on the environment is nothing like as long-lasting as carbon and without taking into account the huge benefit that the grazing ruminants sector delivers in supporting a vast range of ecosystems and biodiversity, together with vital carbon sequestration capability—not to mention the visual appeal of the British countryside, in which grazing livestock are a big part of the attraction so are important to tourism and the rural economy. Of course, we must continue to reduce the emission of methane and carbon as well as the environmental impact of ruminants, but I am confident that we will achieve that by building on scientific knowledge, which is very encouraging and developing all the time through protogenetics, better management, influence on ruminant diets and the choice of grassland species.
I just add in conclusion that I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on his Amendment 6, which he presented very confidently. I also have a lot of sympathy with Amendment 31 and the comments of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. Tree health is a huge challenge and we need clear action by government; the Bill is an opportunity to try to improve tree health and reduce disease. I shall listen with interest to the Minister’s response on these issues.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with a very long list of amendments to speak to, and I shall begin by very briefly addressing the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in response to my noble friend’s Amendment 32. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, for offering his support for my Amendment 11 on soils. I agree with him that it is rather odd that it is not initially in the Bill.
On Amendment 32, I first point out that this amendment does not seek to impose a diet on anyone; it sets a target to head the national diet in a certain direction. On what the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, said about methane, yes, its impact on the climate is shorter lasting, but it is also more than a score higher than that of carbon dioxide. When we consider the facts that we have an emergency and have to ensure that we stay below 1.5 degrees above industrial warming right now, the next 10 years are absolutely crucial and methane emissions now particularly crucial.
My noble friend will not forgive me if I do not stress that we very much understand that animal agriculture has an important place in the British landscape, but we have to start by tackling factory farming—for many reasons, from antimicrobial resistance through to the point that it is food waste to feed perfectly good food that people could eat to animals to produce much less food as a result.
I shall now get to the list that I started with. I shall briefly speak to Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, on light pollution. We in the Green group would have attached our signature to this amendment, had there been space to do so. Clearly, this is a huge issue. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to what has been called “insectageddon”, the huge loss of insect numbers and species, and light pollution is certainly part of that. I also point out that this is very much a case for joined-up government. So much of the light that we emit and pollute our skies with is utterly unnecessary. For example, the French Government have brought in a law that says that neon shop signs have to be switched off between midnight and dawn, which undoubtedly has benefits for the natural world. I am sure it also has huge benefits for people who live in flats above shops, who live in the environment. We are talking about making the environment benefit people and nature.
I also briefly offer support for the general intentions of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, in focusing on trees, while taking on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that we need the right tree in the right place, to use the buzz-phrase. We talk a great deal about tree planting, but it is important that we think about the natural regeneration of trees, because that is one way in which nature will help to ensure that we get the right tree in the right place. We also need to talk a great deal more about agri-forestry and the possibility of forage crops and crops producing human food—nut and fruit trees and so on—mixed in to our existing agricultural systems.
Now I get to the three amendments that I really want to talk about here. I apologise that this will be rather a long speech, but these are short but very important amendments. I come first to Amendment 7, which appears in my name and changes one of the proposed targets set down by the Government. The target as expressed by the Government is for resource efficiency and waste reduction, but I am calling for the words “resource efficiency” to be replaced by “reduction in resource use”. The current wording essentially says, “We’ll continue to treat the planet as a mine and dumping ground, but we will do it less wastefully”. What I suggest is that the law should acknowledge that we cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet and that a circular economy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a sustainable world. In the terms of the neat video, “The Story of Stuff”, which has been around since 2007, we must have less stuff in our lives.
I refer to an important report from the Green Alliance, which I encourage noble Lords to read, which points out that resource use drives half the world’s climate emissions and 90% of nature destruction around the world. The UK’s use of resources, renewable and finite, is twice the level considered sustainable. Of natural resources alone, the UK uses three times as much as the planet can sustainably provide. That report, by what is not by any means a radical green group, calls for resource use to be halved. The UK’s material footprint was estimated at 971 million tonnes in 2018, equivalent to 14.6 tonnes per person. In 1997, 40% of that came from domestic extraction, which fell to 27% in 2018. We are taking a huge quantity of resources from the world—far more than the world can bear.
I stress that cutting resource use does not have to mean a lesser quality of life. When we think about the damage that stuff is doing, whether the ocean is turned into a plastic soup, the planet heated dangerously or soils destroyed in producing food then wastefully fed to animals, which then produces health-damaging junk food, we can see that reducing resource use can considerably improve our quality of life—not just using it better but using less of it. Really, there is no alternative. In a debate on the Finance Bill earlier this month, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew of Oulton, for the Treasury, responded to my remarks along these lines, by pointing to the book More from Less by Andrew McAfee, which claims that technology is enabling the dematerialisation of growth. As many critics have pointed out, however, that book ignores the fact that very often material use and exploitation are being exported, not replaced, and the acceleration of planned obsolescence means that more efficient use of resources has very often not meant less use of resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, pointed us to the United States Geological Survey figures for 72 resources, saying that only six had passed their peak, but that is a reflection of what the known reserves are. What about the damage done to people and nature by extracting them? Mining is by its very nature inevitably destructive. In a world suffering a pandemic of environmental ill health and the biodiversity emergency, more destruction tips us over multiple planetary boundaries, a concept that the response from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, suggests that the Treasury has yet to grasp.
I am well aware that the Minister will find his work cut out in tackling the Treasury on these issues, but I point out that, if this Government want to be—as they so often tell us—world-leading, the European Parliament has demanded that the EU reduce resource use by 2030 and bring it within planetary boundaries, which means cutting it by two-thirds by 2050. That is the target set by the European Parliament. If we are going to be world-leading, that is where the Bill should be going. I am well aware that running the country for the economy instead of running the economy for the well-being of the country is deeply engrained, but that is a challenge for the Minister to take on.
I come to the two other amendments that appear in my name. Before I do, I want to refer back to a comment made in the first group by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who said that we are inadequately exploring the relationship between the Agriculture Act, the Trade Act and the Environment Bill. I had a meeting last week with farmers and farming advisers who expressed to me exasperation and frustration because they were struggling to understand the Government’s intentions in that process. These two amendments that I am about to speak to attempt to deal with some of those issues.
I come to Amendment 11, on soils—and I hope that I get it through. I express my great thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for attaching his name to this amendment and want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for expressing their support for it. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, it is astonishing that it is not in the Bill to start with.
I want to quote Thomas Jefferson:
“While the farmer holds the title to the land, actually, it belongs to all the people because civilization itself rests upon the soil.”
I will also refer to a few points in the report The State of the Environment: Soil from the Environment Agency in June 2019. It is really telling that it says:
“There is insufficient data on the health of our soils and investment is needed in soil monitoring”.
It is very clear that we do not know enough, and if we set a target, that will create a framework where we need to do the measuring. In some ways perhaps it is a bit “chicken and egg”—but let us get this started, because it clearly needs to happen.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I see this as a key grouping and I intend to speak to Amendment 10, moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It is ironic that we are debating this issue on the day of the summer solstice. However, I am an enthusiast for the Bill, and I think I share that with the previous speaker—although perhaps she is more prone to amending the Bill than I would be. I want to see the Bill on the statute book and, from past experience, I am averse to yet another approach to lists. Dream or not, they do not appeal to me, so it must be really something to get me to seek a change in a Bill.
However, light pollution is a real contamination of our environment. My noble friend drew the attention of the House to the briefing from Buglife, which I too have read, but it is there for us all to see. Light pollution affects not only human health, animal health and bird health; it affects insect health—not only how they function but how they can act as pollinators. There are serious environmental consequences of light pollution. I believe that Amendment 10 picks up on the need for the Bill to allow the Government and local government to set standards, to measure, to monitor and, if necessary, to control, avoid and reduce light pollution.
I must declare my interest in that I am a founding member and vice-chairman of the APPG for Dark Skies. The group was inaugurated by the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, and my honourable friend Andrew Griffiths in another place.
There has been a revolution in lighting: you get a lot of lumens for your buck nowadays. Lighting, properly used, is a good thing. It helps us with road safety and street safety, and with personal and property security. All these things benefit from lighting. But, living in a fenland landscape, I can say that bright lights over a porch doorway from a mile away are not a pretty sight. Lighting installed incorrectly and used inappropriately is a menace.
Closer to home, there is a new development that provides a strong focus for the need to control light pollution. Noble Lords will know what I am involved in intensive horticulture, and I am familiar with Westland, in the area of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, which glows in the night sky as it produces crops. Nearer to home, I am familiar with the Chichester plain, which also has an extensive glass area under lighting. We are now looking at vertical farming, and that after all poses many of the same challenges.
I believe that by putting this amendment in the Bill, we will have regard for this issue. If we are not going to lose the magic of the night sky, we need to do so. Last night, I watched the programme by Brian Cox on the magic of the heavens. They are a fascinating thing and our birthright. It would be a tragedy if by carelessness we lost this for humankind. I support the amendment.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I put my name on this group only because I want to support Amendment 10. I will not repeat a lot of what the experts said, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Before I say anything about Amendment 10, I want to advise the Minister. In the previous debate, I referred to the preparation of legislation report in 1975. I advise his office to look at the 2013 government report from parliamentary counsel, When Laws Become Too Complex. He does not have to read it all, but it makes a couple of good points about why laws become complex and why Bills have grown: because every group you can think of wants its bit in the Bill. We know it is a competitive arrangement out there from the kind of briefs we get. We get multiple briefs these days, with maybe 20 groups joined together to save us getting 20 separate ones. We need to be very wary.
The idea is to get the Bill and get some action. That is probably more important. The average size of a Bill in 2009—there is obviously some delay here because I take this from the 2013 report—was 98 pages. This Bill is more than twice the average size of a Bill in those days. It already has a huge number of issues that have been planted there by what I will call pressure groups. I am not being critical, by the way, because I agree with many of the speeches that I have heard this afternoon, but I would rather have the Bill and some action than delays to get the holy grail—it will not work.
On light pollution, I was one of those who always approved of permanent summer time—we never managed to get it through—because I think it would be a good idea. I realise there is a problem; the Scots do not want it. It is one of those issues, but I am in favour of it.
The fact of the matter is that presently the Government’s planning guidance, which I think was updated in November 2019, gives advice and guidance but no action. It talks about the common causes of complaints to local authorities. We all know about domestic, shops, exterior security and insensitively positioned decorative lighting. I live—looking out of the window—in Shropshire. I live in the middle of Ludlow, so it is not completely light free, even at night. One or two buildings leave on their security lights, there is street lighting, and even the railways. But the fact of the matter is that looking at the night sky is difficult anywhere in England these days. I also saw the programme with Professor Brian Cox last night. They could not have taken those photographs of 13 billion light-years away with the kind of pollution we have here.
It is the kind of lighting. No action is being taken on the Government’s guidance—I do not think that local authorities do anything on white light sources or filtering out the blue and ultraviolet light. That can be a problem for some people, and not just people. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, the guidance is only for people and does not take account of the billions of creatures we share this planet with. They are being lost because of light pollution. There is a strong case for putting this amendment in the Bill so that we can get some action.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness want to give the Secretary of State powers to set targets separately in respect of “terrestrial biodiversity” and “marine biodiversity”. Actually, the definition of “natural environment”, as contained in Clause 43, makes clear that it includes the marine environment as well as the terrestrial and water environments. I do not support this amendment because it is unnecessary. Furthermore, it appears to exclude the crucially important area of the water environment.
I also do not support Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It may well be that efficiency is improved by the increased use of some resources and reduced use of others. This depends on the availability and cost of various resources. The noble Baroness’s amendment is too prescriptive and would constrain the Secretary of State unreasonably in the exercise of his powers.
I welcome Amendment 10, in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It is regrettable that the Bill does not cover light pollution. As new road schemes are progressively introduced across the country, many of them are connected with existing roads by new roundabouts, often on high ground above the towns and villages to which they provide relief. They can be seen for miles. Highways regulations require that roundabouts be lit, unlike gradual road junctions. This is an increasing source of light pollution and has a significant effect on the urbanisation of the countryside. Although I am not sure how to measure the “people’s enjoyment” of the countryside, light pollution has a negative effect.
If my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment were accepted, at least in some places, could the meaning of “nature” not be extended to include the soil and the organisms that live in it? In that case, Amendment 11 would be redundant.
Amendments 12 and 31, in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, require the Secretary of State to set targets for the planting of new trees. He spoke with conviction in support of his amendments, but I believe that the Secretary of State already has the necessary power to set targets for tree planting, and I wonder whether this needs to be made a separate priority area.
Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to add “nitrogen management” as a priority area, over which the Secretary of State must set a long-term target. Nitrogen is essential for both plant and animal life, but I am not sure that it is necessary to add another priority area because this is surely already included in Clause 1(3)(c), whether we call this “nature” or “biodiversity”. Furthermore, excessive use of nitrogen in fertilisers has already been reduced by more than a third since the mid-1980s.
Amendment 32, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is terrifying, and I hope that my noble friend does not accept it. It seeks to reduce the amount of meat and dairy products that we consume by 20%. I know that the Committee on Climate Change has recommended that we reduce our livestock production, but I am very sceptical that this would have the slightest impact on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Certainly, growing more trees will help, but 65% of British land is suitable only for livestock grazing, and I believe British farmers will find that the growing middle classes in Asia will steadily recognise the quality of our meat products, opening up new and profitable markets for them.
We have grazed cattle and sheep in this country for thousands of years, and the state should not be in the business of telling us to eat less meat, whether through new draconian measures or the application of taxes that would reduce the profitability of our farms, driving farmers off the land and reducing the proportion of our food that is home-produced.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on his amendment, which I support. The marine environment, onshore and offshore, is vitally important, as we on the environmental sub-committee found on many occasions when we were discussing fisheries. Perhaps this is another case of not knowing what we have got until it is gone. There is a danger of over-fishing the environment, and acting in ways that damage the seabed, and that can have profound effects. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right to stress the importance of this issue.
Before I go on to the light pollution amendment, which I have put my name to, I want to emphasise something that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said. I am puzzled why the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, wants to worry about people eating meat: if ever there was a cause that young people seem to embrace, it is vegetarianism—and indeed veganism. You do not need a government diktat to tell them to do that. Last night, we ate steak at our local pub; today, we had one of Lady Young’s delicious vegetable bakes. You do not need the state to interfere in this—there is a balance to be struck.
I am at one with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about meat and dairy farming. Farming is changing fundamentally. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, reminded us, the use of fertiliser has dropped dramatically, and the way it is applied is much more scientific.
I noticed that there was a sort of aside by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, when she referred to mining. Yes, there will be mining, because we want lithium for batteries for electric cars—unless she is proposing that that is not a way forward. There are those who say that we should not be using cars at all, but you would have a job to convince the British public of that. Even there, science and technology are likely to come to our aid: a different type of battery, possibly using sulphur, may well be available in the future.
I think the advice of my noble friend Lord Rooker and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, was right: we want an Environment Bill, and there is no such thing as a perfect Bill. I remember trying to deal with a Bill on the digital economy—a small Bill that was swamped by about 700 amendments. We have to strike a balance on this Bill.
On the effect of light pollution, I am at one with the noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Taylor, and others. There are so many benefits that we can achieve through controlling light pollution. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, lighting has come along in leaps and bounds, and local authorities are quite capable of doing a lot more to control the use of lighting. Although we are now using LEDs, I notice that they still shine just as brightly right through the night, when they clearly do not need to.
I remember driving along a country lane just outside Swanage, with my two young children. It was completely dark. We looked up at the sky and there, before their amazed eyes, was the Milky Way, stretched out before them in a way they had never seen in town. When I said, “Look, there is a shooting star”, I was met first with derision but was eventually proved right. We are probably never going to be able to return to seeing the Milky Way in London, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and others have brought to the Committee’s attention, we could make a profound difference on pollinators, on the kind of environment that we live in, and on energy saving. I am keen on both those amendments, and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish principally to support Amendments 12 and 31, in the name of my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth, which are about trees. Before I say something about those, I will say a few words about Amendment 6, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 10, about light pollution.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right to draw attention in Amendment 6 to the maritime or marine environment, but the terrestrial and the marine aspects are interconnected and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, pointed out, there is no need for the amendment. You have only to go to the Isle of May—not very far from Edinburgh, where I am—at the mouth of the Firth of Forth, which is inhabited by very large numbers of puffins, to see the way in which that interconnection works. At this time of year, puffins come ashore in their thousands, with their beaks full of sand eels, to feed their young in burrows all round the island. These sand eels live in the sea, and they live on other things in the sea. The maritime environment is their environment, but they are caught by feeding seabirds, which of course spend much of their time at sea as well. The interconnection is obvious in places such as that, and I do not see the need for a distinction. But we do need the Minister to confirm that, when he talks about biodiversity, he means both maritime and terrestrial.
As for light pollution, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, that the summer solstice is a curious time of the year to be talking about it. In my cottage at Craighead in east Perthshire, you can read a newspaper outside at 11 pm. Even at midnight, almost half the sky is still light. We live up in the hills where there is no light pollution at all, and enjoy all the benefits and wonders of the sky where that is true. It is not entirely free of light pollution, because there is a wind farm not far from us which, until recently, had a bright red, winking light warning passing aircraft; it flashed 60 times a minute, right in front of our cottage. We were able to stop it, because there is a condition that required that element of light pollution to be removed by moving to ultraviolet light. This is just a small example of how things can be done by planners who put in the appropriate planning permissions for developments. There is a huge amount of work to do here and, as a bird-watcher, I support very much what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said about the huge damage done to birds by light pollution, and the enormous loss of life that results to other animals, such as bats, as well.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of the Woodland Trust—I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his positive remarks about that organisation—and as a commissioner on the Commission on Food, Farming and the Countryside.
I will speak to Amendments 11, 12 and 31. Amendment 11 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Whitty indicates that soil quality is a priority area for environmental improvement; that is absolutely the case. Soil has for many years been the poor relation as regards environmental media and priorities yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, outlined so clearly, we are now recognising the importance of our soils and their complex ecosystems for a whole variety of things, such as climate change, agriculture, biodiversity, and reducing runoff and erosion to maintain water quality. So, it would be highly appropriate for soil to be highlighted as a priority; I support that amendment.
On Amendment 12 in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, as chairman of the Woodland Trust, I would commend tree planting, of course, but not just planting. If we are to reverse biodiversity decline and tackle climate change, we need to ensure that existing woodlands are effectively managed to maximise their impact on both of those challenges. We know that existing woodland is for the most part not in good condition, particularly native broadleaf woodland. We also need to ensure that our much-threatened ancient woodlands are properly protected so that, after 300 or 400 years of existence, they can continue their vital task of sequestering carbon and fostering biodiversity for another 100 years or more. We also need to see more natural regeneration of trees. But let us be in no doubt: trees are an important priority and this amendment should be supported. If any noble Lords are in any doubt or need further information, I commend to you the State of the UK’s Woods and Trees, recently published by the Woodland Trust.
Amendment 31, also in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, introduces a new target on tree health. I very much support the spirit of that amendment. I am looking out of my study window on a dying 80-foot ash tree, which is protected by a tree protection order but not from tree disease. I am not sure that targets are the right way forward for tree disease, but I support the need for an annual report from government on action on tree health. Because of the importance of this issue, I have laid Amendment 259, which is about the “how” of biosecurity, and preventing importation of tree disease can help. I do hope that I will have the support of the noble and right reverend Lord when we reach that amendment.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I had put myself down to speak in this group to support the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, little realising that I would be following the chairman of the Woodland Trust, therefore making it difficult to add much in support of these two amendments. I had thought that the Government’s policy on planting more trees was already in a piece of legislation, but if it is not, it seems sensible to include it as a priority area, and, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has also tabled, to strengthen the regulations on tree health. As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, we have in recent years been blighted by diseases in elm, ash, chestnut and larch, to mention just some of the trees which we have lost. Research into these disease-resistant varieties must also be a sensible suggestion. I should be very grateful to hear from the Minister why tree planting should not be a priority area.
I also wish to support introducing for discussion the question of light pollution for inclusion in the Bill as a priority. This amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who is clearly knowledgeable on this subject, as on so many others. He is completely right about how difficult it is nowadays to have a good view of the night sky. Again, on this I should be most interested to hear the Government’s response to what appears to be a very sensible amendment. I also understand why a number of noble Lords have spoken about soil quality, which is clearly a fundamental element of all aspects of the environment and of biodiversity, and should surely be considered as another priority area.
I am sorry that like the noble Lord, Lord Curry, I am unable to support Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I should hear declare my agricultural interests. As others have said, and as the noble Baroness acknowledges, there is a huge difference between livestock fed on grass pastures in the United Kingdom and meat produced in feed lots amounting to thousands of animals on each lot, fed largely on concentrates, in North and South America, and in Australasia.
In this very diverse group of amendments, there are so many issues to which I look forward to hearing the Government’s reaction, but I also understand the excellent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that if there is too much in the Bill, there is less likelihood of action.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and so many other environmentally passionate Peers, and to talk to this important group of amendments to add further priority areas to the Bill’s environmental targets.
There is of course the danger that focus on individual priority areas relegates other areas to non-priority status. Given that all of our natural environment is in crisis, I should be wary of picking winners and losers at a singular point in time. I should appreciate it if the Minister, when responding to this group, could explain why these four priority areas were being enshrined in this legislation to the exclusion of any others, and what mechanism might be available to amend this list in future, should priorities necessarily change in coming decades. A priority in 2021 may not be a priority in 2041, and it would not help the environment if we were held to antiquated decades-old priorities.
On Amendment 6, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, while I agree on the importance of the marine environment, I remain unconvinced as to the benefits of dividing between terrestrial and marine biodiversity targets. This would set a false division, particularly for those of us who live and work in the intertidal habitats which are a key element of our national biodiversity. Such intertidal spaces, with their vast carbon sequestration potential and particularly productive biodiversity, would be covered either by both targets, which may be considered unfair double counting, or by neither, which would be much worse.
Here I should declare my interests as listed in the register, a number of which are pertinent to this debate and to all my further contributions. In particular, I am a farmer and landowner in Devon, with interests in farmland, foreshore and heritage landscapes, to which public access is key. I am also a lawyer at a firm with natural capital and agricultural practices which represents farmers, land managers, developers and financiers of ecosystem services.
I have some sympathy with Amendment 7 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but it sets a false target which I fear we would be doomed to miss. With our population inevitably growing over the coming decades, we will undoubtedly use more of certain resources and we cannot limit ourselves to an absolute reduction in all resource use, but it is right that we commit to an absolute reduction in waste and an absolute increase in resource efficiency.
I do not agree that either light pollution or nitrogen management deserves separate priority status, as proposed in Amendments 10 and 14. Both are undoubtedly important issues, but they are merely two among many environmental concerns that should not be separately elevated.
Conversely, as to Amendment 11, I believe that soil quality or soil health warrants its own independent priority status, as soil quality is key to the health of our landscape, the provision of healthy and nutritious food, the management and retention of water and the increase in biodiversity, as well as the sequestration of carbon. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, soil is the “mineral substrate” on which our biodiversity has grown. The absence of soil alongside air and water among our priority categories is a gaping omission. As the Bill is drafted, focus will fall predominantly on air and water, and our soil will continue to suffer. It is also noteworthy that soil is the most complex and least understood of our natural habitats. Academics continue to struggle in evaluating the natural capital value of soil, as it is much harder to measure than air or water. By omitting it from Clause 1(3), we are in danger of giving it a permanently second-tier status.
As to trees, which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, seeks to add as both a priority area and a specific environmental target, I am again very sympathetic, but I do not believe they warrant the separate attention that soil so clearly deserves. We already have a national tree strategy and ambitious planting targets within the 25-year environment plan, and trees should continue to get considerable attention with or without these amendments. However, I note that Amendment 12 focuses on the planting of new trees, whereas of more importance, and as set out in Amendment 31, is the management of our existing tree cover, much of which is in poor condition and badly managed. We need to avoid focusing solely on new tree planting targets and should instead give equal if not more attention to thinning existing plantations and managing pests and diseases to ensure that the trees we have are as healthy as possible.
Finally, I have to resist the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to regulate by statute our consumption of meat and dairy. What her amendment does not and cannot do is address the complex issues around meat and dairy farming which are key to the maintenance of our ancient and much-valued pastures. As a Devon farmer, I am bound to resist such regulations, but I encourage the Government to do all they can to promote the UK’s grass-fed meat and dairy as a vastly better form of protein than stall-raised, cereal-fed alternatives from overseas. While I agree that we need to eat less meat and dairy, it needs to be achieved by education and dietary and well-being awareness, and what we do eat needs to be better and locally produced.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Amendment 31 standing in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. In doing so, I also give my support to the lead amendment in this group, Amendment 6, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I hope that the Minister can accept Amendment 6 and incorporate it into the Bill. I indeed agree with many of the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, a moment ago, particularly with regard to trees.
Amendment 31 addresses a tragic contemporary issue: tree disease. I remember, last year hearing the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, speak extremely movingly about the issue of ash dieback, which has been acutely evident in parts of Wales, particularly in Ceredigion, as he knows better than anyone. I should, perhaps, declare an interest: on our fields we had to fell four ash trees last November, because ash dieback was already devastating them. Our tree feller told me then that I probably face several more trees having to be felled this autumn. It is heart-breaking that, on our roadsides in Wales and along our cycle tracks, we see trees with orange marks designating that they have this awful condition and are doomed to be felled. I support this amendment. We are in the middle of a war against tree disease and, in any such battle, we must be adequately equipped with the facts.
In many ways, it is surprising that the considerations covered by this amendment are not already part of government strategy. If they are, perhaps the Minister could put me right. They certainly should be. I hope that he can provide us with assurances that all these provisions are really covered in legislation or, if they are not, that the Government will seriously consider each of the various proposals included in this amendment. If they cannot accept the wording, perhaps they will bring forward at Report their own amendment that can deal effectively with these issues.
Finally, again, can the Minister give an assurance that there is cross-border co-operation with the Welsh Government on this issue, as tree infections are no respecters of political borders? I urge support therefore for both Amendments 6 and 31.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I would like to speak in favour of Amendment 10 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Taylor. The effect of light pollution is intrinsically part of the existing four priority areas for which environmental targets will be set, but it is not mentioned in any of the actions identified in the Bill to remedy or mitigate the underlying issues raised by these targets. Hence a separate target to reduce levels of light pollution is necessary and will not be difficult to implement or measure.
I declare my interest, being a vice-chair of the APPG on Dark Skies, like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and as the grandson of a knighted astronomer. Light pollution is relevant to human health, nature and wildlife, energy consumption and thereby greenhouse gas emissions. First, on health, epidemiological studies conducted in the United States have identified poorer sleep and anxiety disorders emanating from outdoor illumination, affected physical and mental health and well-being. Constant light is a well-known method of torture. Secondly, there is the effect on nature and wildlife. A review from Nature magazine in 2018 concluded that
“early results suggest that light at night is exerting pervasive, long-term stress on ecosystems, from coasts to farmland”
and
“waterways, many of which are already suffering from other, more well-known forms of pollution.”
The article then mentions a UK study on the timing of bud opening in trees, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. The study demonstrated a rate of acceleration “similar to that” now “predicted for … global warming”.
A Defra report in 2019 showed a sharp decline in insect numbers, with a 31% drop in insect pollinators between 1980 and 2016, and a 60% decline in the 2,890 priority species from 1970 to 2016. The State of Nature 2019 report by the National Biodiversity Network identified urban areas as particularly affected. In 2017, a paper from Nature highlighted the connection between light pollution and pollinating insect species, suggesting a threat to world food production.
Thirdly, there is the additional and unnecessary fuel consumption associated with aggressive illumination and the extra burden on greenhouse gas emissions. The reason for illumination that is so often given is that of safety. A study by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine found that crime and road collisions do not increase in dark or dimmed areas.
Measuring light pollution is simple, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, with the use of a system produced by CPRE that can form the basis of monitoring change. Let us use this opportunity to acknowledge and deal with this important area, as encouraged by the Government’s draft environmental principles, encompassing both precaution and prevention. Measures to remedy the problems are not rocket science but clearly achievable through the strengthening of the planning framework, the reform of planning permission processes, the strengthening of statutory nuisance provisions, education, and technological developments. We can also learn from examples of measures taken in countries such as France and Germany.
Surely the amendment has a necessary and worthy place in this important Bill.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 10, to which I have added my name, and I support other amendments in this group. I declare my interest, as others have done, as a member of the APPG for Dark Skies. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has made the case for his amendment very eloquently, as has the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach.
When I was a child—this was a while ago—I was brought up in Bristol. Like all children, I was fascinated by the moon, which shone in the sky. Man had not yet ventured to the moon, which I felt was a distant, magical planet. Although we lived in a city, it was possible to see the night sky. Streetlights were switched off before midnight, probably at about 11 pm. There was much less human activity at night in those days. I was therefore able to concoct wonderful stories in my imagination about the man in the moon and the shadows on the moon’s surface.
Roll forward to today, and the map of the country often shown on news bulletins is of a land illuminated by streetlights that are not turned off. The areas where darkness prevails are few and far between. It is impossible for a child living in an urban area to investigate the sky and see the stars twinkling in the light reflected from the moon.
To move from the emotional view of light pollution to the detail of it, it is impacting our species and ecosystems, and increased artificial light at night is directly linked to negative impacts on energy consumption, human health and wildlife such as bats, insects and plants, as others have referred to. Ten years ago I could walk down the lane at 10 pm and bats would be swooping around overhead, consuming gnats and other flying insects. Today it is very rare to see any bats overhead at night. There is a wealth of information about the effect on birds and insects of artificial light, and others have made powerful speeches about the impact of light pollution on night pollinators and on feeding cycles.
My neighbour has a telescope in their upstairs window to see the stars. How very lucky we are to live in a dark area—the only light pollution that we suffer is from Advent to Epiphany, when the church is illuminated by floodlights—but over 90% of the UK population are estimated to be unable to see the Milky Way from where they live. To my mind, that is a severe limit on their ability to observe and wonder at the world that we live in, as well as having a devastating effect on the ecosystems and biodiversity of the nocturnal environment. The night-time economy is often referred to as a good thing. It is time that the animal, insect and plant nocturnal economy was given protection to ensure its survival. I fully support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Randall.
My noble friend Lord Teverson spoke eloquently about the long-term biodiversity target, both onshore and offshore. I share his comments and his concerns about our territorial seas, the marine ecosystems and seagrass.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, urged us to reduce consumption of resources rather than improve efficiency. To make a difference, both will need to be high on the Minister’s agenda.
Tree planting, which we have debated many times, is essential to carbon sequestration, habitat protection and improving flood alleviation. Protecting our native trees from diseases imported from other countries and those carried on the wind is essential to maintain a steady increase in the number of trees. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harris of Pentregarth, raised tree planting.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on soil quality is really important; the subject was raised on Second Reading. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has also supported this. If we do not get the soil quality right, we will not move forward.
We are all aware of the contribution that cattle make to agricultural emissions—currently accounting for 60%. The Committee on Climate Change recommends that the Government implement a 20% reduction in the consumption of meat and dairy; most speakers referred to that. Can the Minister say whether the Government are preparing a strategy to ensure that this 20% reduction is implemented? Perhaps this will be through raising awareness with the public of the effect on the environment of meat and dairy consumption.
This has been an important and fascinating group of amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for introducing this important debate and all noble Lords who have contributed to the hugely important spectrum of issues raised this evening.
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a significant point that repairing our marine biodiversity is as important as rebuilding our land-based biodiversity. But it is true that, as it stands, the Bill ignores the marine environment completely. I agree that that needs to be addressed.
Sadly, our seas and oceans are increasingly polluted. Plastics and microplastics, chemical fertiliser, run-offs from agriculture and, as we debated earlier, sewage discharges, are all damaging the quality of our seas. We are killing off our coral, creating ocean dead zones, and allowing excess algae blooms to suck the oxygen out of our water. The effects of this are damaging to both marine and human life, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, argued, if we act now, reverse those trends and encourage new growths of seaweeds and seagrasses, the oceans could be harnessed as a positive source of carbon sequestration in our climate change strategy. There is everything to fight for.
In his Second Reading response, the Minister mentioned the blue belt around our overseas territories. Of course this is welcome, as is the growth of marine protected areas around the UK coastline, but there is so much more we should be doing. The current marine protected areas still allow damaging seabed extraction and fishing. I hope the Minister can confirm that the recommendation of his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, that there should be a string of highly protected marine areas will be implemented in full.
Sadly, so far, the Government have seemed reluctant to legislate to ensure that any future marine protections are legally enforceable. That is why we would welcome the inclusion of robust marine biodiversity targets in the Bill. Our experience with the Fisheries Bill last year was that the Government were not prepared to put sustainable fishing at the heart of the Bill. As a result, the charity Oceana has reported that, post Brexit, only one-third of the UK’s key fish populations is in a healthy state, with bottom trawlers and supertrawlers causing particularly damaging effects on the marine environment. So, if not now, when will we see action on these issues?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and I would like to clarify that the Bill gives us the power to set legally-binding long-term targets on any aspect of the natural environment, including the marine environment, soils and waste reduction. In further answer to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, we are not limiting our targets to four, nor are we binding the hands of future Governments. Developing targets is an iterative process where we should seek continuous improvements to strengthen our environmental outcomes. The Government will periodically review targets and can set more, especially if that is what is required to deliver significant improvement to the natural environment in England.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling Amendment 6. I reassure the noble Lord and others who have spoken on this issue that the initial round of targets is likely to include a target that covers the marine environment. I am pleased to confirm that we are collating evidence with a view to developing a new target on the condition of marine protected areas right now. We are aware that any marine-related target will need to complement and avoid duplication with the existing suite of targets set at UK level under the UK marine strategy. However, we do not want to prejudge where this evidence-based process will take us.
I want to comment on a number of points raised by noble Lords regarding marine targets and will touch on the “significant improvement test” for targets covered in Clause 6. A government amendment made in the other place clarified that both the terrestrial and marine aspects of England’s natural environment will be considered when conducting the significant improvement test. That has always been the ambition and there has never been any doubt about it, but that amendment removes whatever doubt might still linger. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Young, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about the importance of our domestic marine environment, highlighting the great story that is our blue belt programme around our overseas territories. She is right of course that we need to do much more to protect our domestic marine environment. We are at a stage now where we have 372 marine protected areas, that is about 38% of UK waters, but the focus now, having designated all those marine protected areas, has to be on ramping up protection. There is no doubt about that. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the central conclusions and recommendations of the Benyon Review Into Highly Protected Marine Areas and I believe the first designations are expected early next year. If that is wrong, I will be in touch, but I think it is early next year.
With regards to Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, our current target priority area is
“resource efficiency and waste reduction.”
The broader notion of “resource efficiency” in the Bill’s clauses, rather than “reduction of resource use” in the noble Baroness’s amendment, allows us to explore a target on resource productivity, which measures the economic value per unit of raw material use. This builds on the Government’s previous commitments to double resource productivity by 2050. Setting a target of resource productivity would allow us to reduce resource use, while helping to build the economy’s resilience to price volatility, increase resource security and enhance our international competitiveness. The concern is that the noble Baroness’s amendment would restrict our target development in this area.
Moving on, I agree very strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that soil health is important. It is more than important, it is almost a pre-requisite for our survival, a point made by my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Curry. This is why the Government are working collaboratively with technical experts to identify appropriate soil health metrics that can represent diverse functions and ecosystem services provided by soils across different land-use types. As she explained so well in her speech, it is a complicated business and an area where our understanding is perhaps not as complete as it should be.
These metrics will inform the development of the healthy soils indicator, as set out in the 25-year environment plan. We are also developing an evidence base, which could inform a long-term soil target and our understanding of soil health. Given our evidence-based approach to developing targets, I am sure that the noble Baroness appreciates the need to gather more data on soil health before pressing on and setting the actual target.
On Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, Defra modelling indicates that the action planned in the Clean Air Strategy to achieve existing legally binding targets will reduce the
“damaging deposition of reactive forms of nitrogen by 17% over … protected priority sensitive habitats by 2030”.
However, I scribbled my notes on that percentage in haste, and my writing is so bad that I might have got the percentage wrong. If I have, again, I will be in touch, but I think I can just about see what I have written here.
Moving on to the amendments tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, I agree that increasing tree cover and improving tree health are, of course, important areas that require action, as many noble Lords have echoed. As noted in the policy paper on environmental targets published in August last year, the Government are considering a statutory target for trees in England. We will consult on a long-term tree target to help meet the Government’s commitments on climate change and biodiversity as part of a broader public consultation on targets expected early next year, based on recommendations of the Climate Change Committee. Again, we should not prejudge where this evidence-based process will take us. I also note that the Government have already committed, potentially as a first step, to at least 7,000 hectares per year in England by 2025, as announced in the recently published England Trees Action Plan, and have announced a Nature for Climate Fund of £640 million to increase planting in England.
I note the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the potential role of natural regeneration over and above formal planting. I strongly agree with her there again. We have designed our incentives package in such a way that people can present plans for natural regeneration. If they are appropriate plans, the Government will provide the funding, just as they would in relation to other forms of tree planting. I hope we will see a significant uptake in the amount of land that is allowed to naturally regenerate.
I hope it reassures the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to know that the Tree Health Resilience Strategy—published in 2018—outlined plans to protect England’s tree population from pest and disease threats. Tree health is continually monitored under Forest Research’s national forest inventory, providing accurate information about the condition of our forests and woodlands. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked if we co-operated with Wales. The answer is that we absolutely do so very regularly on an issue which, as he rightly says, does not respect borders. Our evidence suggests that the right approach is to continue to use these measures to drive positive results for tree health.
Before I move off this issue, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, asked that we do not merely focus on new trees. He is right; the amount of existing woodland that is managed is far lower than it ought to be. I encourage him to look again at the England Trees Action Plan because there is a big emphasis throughout the plan on incentives for the better management of existing woodlands.
Moving on to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, based on the currently available evidence, artificial light is not identified as one of the main drivers of species decline, though I very much share his concerns on this issue. I agree, of course, that there is an urgent need for increased and further study in this area. The Government continue to take a broad approach to conserving insect pollinators, including in relation to artificial light. This includes measures such as controls in the planning system and the statutory nuisance regime.
As the designation of several of England’s national parks as International Dark Sky Reserves demonstrates, we are working to protect exceptional nocturnal environments, which bring huge natural, educational and cultural enjoyment to members of the public, a point made extremely powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I hope this goes some way to reassuring my noble friends Lord Taylor and Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Carrington, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that we take this issue seriously.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell us what financial assessment has been made of the short-term benefit from these amendments, particularly the one on light pollution. There is a high cost to the NHS of the human health conditions that are aggravated by excessive light pollution exposure, especially in mental health disorders, and probably obesity and some cancers. There is also the financial benefit of decreasing the contamination of our marine waters, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, highlighted. That contamination seriously damages our seafood production. The financial benefit in the short term could therefore go hand in hand with a longer-term benefit from both these amendments of meeting our other targets.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. On the first point about the cost assessments in relation to light pollution, I do not know whether that data exists. If it does, I have not seen it but I will ask the department whether it exists. If it does, I will make that information available by putting it in the Library—but I am not convinced that it does. On the broader point, in a sense this goes to the heart of the Bill. There are enormous cost savings in doing right by the environment. We know that if we do not use chemicals on our farms and allow them to wash into rivers, we will not have to spend money cleaning up our rivers downstream. If we manage land in a way that slows down the flow of water, we will need to spend less on concrete flood defences further downstream. It goes on and on. Perhaps the biggest saving of all relates, as the noble Baroness says, to human health. It is not an exact science; there is no data that we can point to and say, “This is exactly what we’re going to save by doing this or that”. But there is no doubt that if we take care of our environment in a way that, frankly, we have not for many decades, there will be an enormous saving to society in many different respects as a consequence.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken favourably on Amendment 6 about the maritime side, particularly my Green Party colleagues who have added their names to it. Having referred, as has the Minister, to Clause 6, I have ploughed my way through 233 sections of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and am delighted to confirm that the Bill does define “England” as including not just territorial seas but the EEZ. That is certainly how I read it. It is an improvement, and I welcome it.
I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that the marine and territorial ecosystems and environments are completely interconnected. Absolutely they are, but that is not the point. The point is that, if there is one target it will almost certainly be terrestrial and the whole of marine will be left out, or the other way around: we need them both. I take the Minister’s assurance that there will probably be more than four. I hope there will be something like the Ocean Health Index—I am sure he is aware of it—which is being developed internationally, as well as nationally. I welcome the fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, that the recommendations from the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, on highly protected marine areas will come forward. I have an amendment about that later.
I am optimistic that the Government have included in the Bill the marine side of things. This can often be left out, but I know that that is not true of the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Could I suggest a five-minute adjournment while we just look for the Minister?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 8. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 8
“(e) public access to and enjoyment of the natural environment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to require, rather than enable, the Government to set legally binding, long-term targets to increase public access to, and enjoyment of, the natural environment.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
One of the themes that has run through the debates that we have had so far today is the extent to which the public understand the provisions in these Bills and, more importantly, the extent to which they buy in to the sorts of things that we are trying to achieve with this legislation. It seems to me that the best way to make sure that people support what we are trying to do is to ensure that they have access to nature in all of its different forms, because it is very difficult to get public support for something that is entirely theoretical.
It seems to me that there is an opportunity in the Bill to think about creating a new national framework that relates to people’s access to, enjoyment of and understanding of the natural world. From all sorts of studies that have been carried out, including by government, we know just how important access to open spaces and nature is for people’s physical and mental well-being. This has been particularly important over the last year.
As I say, we also need to understand that people need to have access to nature if they are going to support what we are trying to do. They should not feel shut out or that the countryside or nature are somehow for someone else. I am not just talking about the countryside or public rights of way; I am really talking about access to nature in all its forms, whether it is our magnificent urban parks, the smaller spaces that pop up sometimes, or places such as canal tow-paths. All of these provide important opportunities for people to access the natural world. This is not just about walkers, although it is mainly walkers: there are also cyclists, bird-watchers, kayakers, wild swimmers and all sorts of other people who benefit and wish to get access. But we know that that access is not equally distributed. We know that access is limited for people with disabilities, for example. We know that, in a lot of deprived, particularly urban, environments, access is limited, and that this is particularly a problem among certain ethnic groups.
We are still debating Clause 1, and we are talking about creating a framework for target-setting. But while subsection (3) creates areas where the Government must set targets, the whole question of access and public enjoyment is in subsection (1), which sets out areas where targets “may” be set. Similarly, when we get to the EIPs, in Clause 7, with all of its monitoring, planning and reporting requirements, enjoyment of the countryside is enabled rather than required.
So these amendments would require the Government to put more focus on the question of access and the public enjoyment of nature. However, there are real benefits to the Government from thinking about this approach, because it would enable them to start pulling together a framework that would link the work they are doing on the coastal path and the refreshed Countryside Code with the system of new payments for farmers, with its emphasis on public goods, as well as the planning Bill when it emerges and the green infrastructure provision—all alongside the health and well-being agenda, and in particular social prescribing. So I hope that the Government will at least consider putting public access and enjoyment on a slightly more secure footing and I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it does not seem that long ago that we discussed these types of issues on the Agriculture Bill. My noble friend is a skilled and subtle operator in Parliament and did not dive in on the issue of footpaths and their creation. Footpaths and access to the countryside inspire in people either a Messianic gleam—“This is where you should go”—or a grating of teeth because you hate the person who is planning the path. The advantage of this approach is that you are looking at it as a whole. If you are trying to make sure that people have some access to the countryside and put it in a plan, you stand a chance, albeit a slim one, of getting rid of these quite silly and childish arguments. We should have access.
The comments of my noble friend bring this down to the fact that we should have access. There is a benefit to you and a way out, and this cuts into other agendas. I will not expand on this for long, because I will have another opportunity later in Committee, but the fact is that, if you want a fitter and healthier society, you should give people some access. Opportunities for gentle exercise are there for those of a more advanced age, but—why not?—if you want to run up that hill, off you go. We need to make sure that people have opportunities to use and enjoy the countryside. That will enhance people’s buy-in, because they will see what is there. There is also a chance that they will see the problems that other people have in making sure that the countryside works to deliver a good environment and to produce food; it is all there.
I hope that when the Minister comes to answer he will make sure that he embraces the idea that things come together. We all know that Ministers are very keen on working across government so long as their department is dominant and their scheme is the one having the final say. I have seen dozens of documents that state, “Yes, the other departments should really do what we say, but we don’t impose upon them to actually do it”. The Government should get a plan together that makes people co-operate. I would be interested—maybe I will get a chance to expand on this later—to see how the various bits of government will communicate, what is required here, and what they can expect.
Also, when the Government encourage people to enjoy the environment, they should take into account little things, such as whether there is a bus service to walking facilities or whether everybody has to pile into a car, go down small roads and clog up the local infrastructure. Things such as this matter. You have to get in there and make sure that there is some form of communication. This is a good idea.
I also cannot resist saying that we have a bit of a parliamentary evolution; it is now “may” and “must”, as opposed to “may” and “shall”. Maybe that is a step forward—or are we just going to a new cliché? I do not know. But if we are moving things into these areas, it will be interesting to see what the Government are going to say and what the priorities are, because good intentions have far too often been the paving stones of the road to hell.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, my two amendments in this group are Amendments 9 and 57. Amendment 9 adds “connecting people with nature” to the priority areas in Clause 1(3), and Amendment 57 looks at the environmental improvement plans and adds “understanding” and “participation” to “enjoyment” in Clause 7(5).
Clause 1(3) lists the priority areas of air quality, water, biodiversity, resource efficiency and waste reduction. If we are giving priority to all those areas, we will be asking people to make substantial changes to the way they behave: to use less water; to drive less; to drive slower cars; to make fewer demands on the environment and the food they eat; to spend much more time recycling than they do at the moment; and doubtless other changes too. People need a motivation to do that, and the underlying motivation surely has to come from reconnecting people with nature, so that they value it and feel part of it, and it will therefore come into the equation when they are considering whether to go along with and support the changes the Government are proposing. There have been a number of changes recently where those proposing them have not chosen to take people with them. There is growing opposition to low-traffic neighbourhoods, for instance, because people were never involved, consulted or taken with them, and there was no underlying motivation for the improvement of the common environment.
It is silly to make those entirely desirable changes in a way which conjures opposition. Stonewall has done this with trans rights. It does not have to be this way. It means that those proposing change must take long steps to involve people in the reasons for those changes, and the underlying motivations. In the case of subsection (3), the underlying motivation is a love of and connection with nature. We know that people are capable of that because we can see it all around us, in those people who are connected. We know from that, and from research, how much well-being and how much joy and pleasure—at a very low cost to the environment—comes from having a deep love and understanding of nature. It really ought to be the underpinning value in subsection (3), and it ought not—coming to the environmental improvement plans—be just about the enjoyment of nature. This is not a passive thing, like a television show, but something which people need to be part of. I hope that the changes I propose will find favour with the Government. They will make everything else they are trying to do much more effective when it comes to putting it into practice.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We will return to the noble Lord later. We now move to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and after her the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, have withdrawn.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I rise to speak to Amendments 8 and 56, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, to which I have attached my name, though I will also offer my support to Amendment 9, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about connecting people with nature. It is clearly much connected to Amendments 8 and 56.
In introducing this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, focused on the need to win support for the Bill by allowing people to access nature. I will also focus on the public health elements, and the fact that we now have increasing awareness—with particular credit to many campaigners over the years, and to many researchers who have helped us understand this—that for the human microbiome, mental health or general well-being, exposure to, involvement in and being in nature is good for people’s health. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was talking about access to small spaces. I will talk much more broadly, and I fear that perhaps I will scare the horses a little here, but I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to the degree of the desire for access to nature that exists out there. I put it to your Lordships’ Committee that we very much need to create more space because there is a push for very great openness.
In talking about that, I will refer, and offer my support, to something known as the Right to Roam campaign. It highlights that, in England, 92% of the countryside and 97% of rivers are not accessible to the public. We often talk about “these overcrowded islands” and how difficult it is for people to get to open space. But some parts of these islands are not very crowded at all. The Right to Roam campaign is calling for an extension to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, so that people will have much broader and easier access to open space, including hundreds of thousands of acres of woodland, meadows, rivers and their banks. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 gave access to 8% of England. That is mountain, moorland, commons and some downland heath. By the very nature of those spaces, they tend to be very remote. They are not easy to access, particularly with our extraordinary lack of public transport in rural areas—in fact, they are almost totally inaccessible to people who do not have access to a car. There is a real postcode lottery, and a clear inequality and unfairness in our current arrangements.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, I think that farmers and landowners welcome the public’s enjoyment of and responsible access to the countryside. Of course, one of the joys of the countryside is that few people are there. If the whole of our urban population walked in the countryside for all their free time, it would be wrecked. There has been an enormous increase in recent years in public access to the countryside. Unfortunately, public understanding of and respect for nature and the countryside environment have not developed commensurately.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, in Amendments 8 and 56, seeks to add targets in respect of public access to and enjoyment of the natural environment. I am not quite sure how public enjoyment of the countryside can be measured. It depends in part on the weather. Ironically, the increased, and in many cases unauthorised, public access which has occurred during the past year or more has been the single greatest cause of damage to the land and to nature. There has been a massive increase in fly-tipping, littering and trespassing. All this has produced unexpected costs for farmers and landowners in the very year in which they suffer the first big cut in the direct payments scheme, and this before they are able to compensate their loss of earnings through enrolment in the new ELM schemes.
Natural England has launched a new countryside code, which should be taught in schools, as the CLA has recommended. Farmers and landowners welcome responsible visitors, but it is vital that the increased numbers enjoying the countryside stick to footpaths. They must also understand the risks around livestock. There are many areas where wildlife habitats need protection and should be left undisturbed. So I would not support an unfettered right to roam, and any measures that the Government take to encourage increased public access must be balanced by measures to improve public understanding of, and respect for, the countryside.
Some people believe that agriculture is the enemy of environmentalism, but surely the opposite is true: sustainable agriculture and the recovery of nature can and must coexist. I very much hope that the ELM schemes under development will encourage that. For these reasons I prefer Amendments 9 and 57 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas: they presuppose improved public understanding of the countryside. I am not convinced, however, that the countryside needs, or can easily cope with, any accelerated increase in public access beyond that which increased prosperity and improved work/life balance is in any case already enabling.
Amendment 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is interesting. Illegal use of motor vehicles on private roads and tracks, whether sealed or unsealed, should be prevented by better enforcement, but I do not think that the state should distinguish between driving on sealed and unsealed tracks. Furthermore, many tracks which were sealed years ago are now indistinguishable from unsealed tracks.
The last amendment in this group is Amendment 284, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It is probably otiose, in that the Bill already gives the Secretary of State the powers to set targets for the people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. There are already 140,000 miles of public footpaths and other rights of way in England and Wales, and landowners are busy considering what additional paths they might open to the public. Can the Minister confirm whether ELMS will provide the opportunity for land managers to receive grants for allowing permissive access, similar to those which were offered under countryside stewardship schemes?
The noble Baroness suggested that a review should compare public access rights in England with those in other parts of the United Kingdom. Is she not aware how great the differences are? The population density of England is 279 people per square kilometre, more than four times that of Scotland at 67 people per square kilometre, and nearly twice that of Wales at 151 people per square kilometre. The vast difference between England and Scotland in typical terrain and density suggests that a comparison of access rights would be irrelevant, even if interesting. I regret therefore that I cannot support this amendment either.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. She is not here, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Trenchard. I agree with nearly everything he says. That may surprise some noble Lords but, as I think he will understand, I have a great connection with nature. At the age of nine, in 1964, I was made a member of the RSPB by my grandfather. I am still a member—in fact I am a member of the council of the RSPB. Wildlife and nature have virtually become my religion, in the sense of being where I find solace.
However, there is a lot that can still be done on access for those people who cannot get it. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned public transport. Certainly I have been active in trying to get access for those with disabilities. I am not sure that it is the Government’s job. A lot of the NGOs, including the RSPB itself and the National Trust, are trying their best but it is difficult. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, if all people were responsible, more access for walking and so on would be desirable. However, I am afraid that I have seen too many examples—not just in the last year although it has been accentuated—of people who do not know the countryside code and, quite frankly, do not want to know it. I live not in the country but in suburbia. We have some very pleasant walks around our local lake, Little Britain Lake, but it is constantly ruined by picnics and barbecues and so forth. The litter is appalling and ruins the enjoyment of the many people who go there to just wander around and enjoy nature.
Another point I think relevant is that unfettered access is not necessarily good for the natural environment. Again, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard mentioned, where wildlife is concerned, you have to make sure there are some areas without access. You will see it in in reserves and in other places, certainly at breeding times. Again, responsibility comes into it. I am a dog owner myself but I would not let my dog off the lead if there were ground-nesting birds, whether on the shore or indeed on heath-land. Heath-land is another example where you see many paths cut through, where people have just walked all over it—not to mention the dreaded portable barbecues.
Although I want to make sure that people have that connection to nature, we cannot force people. I think there is a role for education, and I have certainly noticed more people being interested—that perhaps goes back to the first debates we had about biodiversity and nature—but it would be unwise to just have unfettered access. I feel extremely sorry for landowners and farmers, and say that I regard the majority of them as custodians of the natural world; there are one or two exceptions but normally they are not individuals that I have come across. We have to be very careful. The idea of getting more people connected with nature is a good one. I am not sure that it should be in the Bill, but I am prepared to see what comes forward.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I could not make up my mind—I do not think he could either —about exactly what he wanted. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. She has a point about getting public buy-in, the principle of well-being, and people enjoying the countryside. It is a shared environment. I live next door to the Grand Union Canal and across the road I have access to farmland and so on. Yes, there are people who do not respect that environment; that was one thing on which I agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard—it is a question of teaching young people the countryside code. However, the basic principle of including a reference to this in the Bill is worth while. I probably agree in this instance with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that the Government ought to consider exploring the principle of the right to roam. It is as though we imagine that, as soon as we open up these places, they will be terrorised by people who have no respect for the environment. The reality is that the vast majority of people have, and appreciate it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride)
After the noble Earl, Lord Devon, I will call the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, noting my interests previously declared, I am a passionate believer in better access to our natural environment. Access goes hand in hand with education and knowledge of the environment, our landscape and the sources of our food. Without this understanding, landscape management will suffer and our health outcomes will be worse. I am glad that the Minister welcomes us referencing Professor Dasgupta’s review into the economics of biodiversity. Professor Dasgupta clearly highlighted the need to educate the nation about the natural capital we consume and the landscape in which we live. This education is dependent on properly managed access.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on the first set of amendments, in recommending the health and well-being benefits of being active in and connected to the outdoors. The pandemic has laid bare stark inequalities in people’s access to nature, often along wealth and social divides. Our work for the national plan for sport and recreation highlighted the basic need of many urban communities for better access to green and open space. The Bill needs to do all it can to encourage better managed access to nature and better education about how our predominantly farmed landscape came into being and is now managed.
Observant Lords will note that I am not calling for an increase in access and I do not support Amendment 284 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Rather, I am talking about better quality of access, provided where it is needed most for public health and well-being and has the least impact on the biodiversity that is really at the heart of the Bill.
Noble Lords may recall that, almost exactly a year ago, we debated access in the context of the ELMS under the Agriculture Bill. I note how much we miss the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, at this time, whose wisdom and contributions were so valuable in this regard. During that debate, I listed the negative impact of access on our small part of Devon over the previous few years. I will not repeat the graphic details of the baseball-bat attacks on young lambs, but will remind noble Lords of that, of IRA bomb-making equipment stashed in our woods alongside flytipped asbestos, of the dangers of chestnut blight and other tree diseases being spread by human contact, of the theft of shellfish and of the disastrous impact of dogs on nesting waders and other birds across the SSSI of the Exminster marshes.
Access is key to improving our understanding of the environment and obtaining well-being benefits from it but is often not good for the environment itself. Thus, where access is to be granted, it must be properly managed and fully funded, taking into account the preservation of nature and the land management that is responsible for maintaining it. Improved access requires better gates, fences, signs, pathways and knowledge of the functions of our land and the heritage that brought it into being. For that reason, I support Amendments 9 and 57, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but remain equivocal about Amendment 8, particularly as the explanatory statement reveals an intention to “increase” access. Increased access is not the answer; better access is.
Finally, I speak for farmers and land managers who, for the most part, remain nervous about public access for the reasons I have stated. Improving public access is dependent on their willingness to open their homes and farms to others. We need to bring them with us and to educate them about the benefits of improved access, as much as we need to educate those seeking such access.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start with a short explanation of the reason for Amendment 58. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 protected footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways from use and damage by recreational motor vehicles. However, the same Act left unprotected a further 3,000 miles of countryside tracks. These are the nation’s green lanes. They are being used and damaged by 4x4s, motorbikes and quad bikes, which are being driven entirely for recreational purposes. This amendment is the first step in closing the loophole in the NERC Act which allows non-essential motors to inflict environmental damage and nuisance to green lanes. The amendment does not affect the rights of landowners, occupiers or residents, drivers of essential motor vehicles, or people with disabilities who use powered mobility scooters.
The context for this amendment is twofold. First, the stated purpose of the Environment Bill is to improve the natural environment. Secondly, the 2019 Glover review of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty called for radical change in the way we protect our landscapes and stressed the need to take urgent steps to recover and enhance nature. One of the things that is causing damage to the natural environment, and to fragile and precious landscapes, is that, at present, 4x4 vehicles, motorbikes and quad bikes are allowed to be driven for purely recreational purposes on unsealed tracks all over the countryside, including in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
This is allowed to happen only because the law currently says that if an unsealed track, whatever it may be, was used in the past by the public with horse-drawn carts, that it is now a right of way for any kind of modern motor vehicle. Parliament attempted to deal with this in 2006 by passing the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act: other vehicles could use footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways, but it left unprotected over 3,000 miles of other track in the countryside that have no public right of way classification. These amount to over half of the country’s green lanes. They are open to use and abuse by recreational motor vehicles and, as a result, great damage is being done, even on the high fells.
There are similar problems on many of the other 3,000 miles of the country’s green lanes—those classified as byways, open to all traffic. In reality, many of them are effectively no longer open to walkers, cyclists, horse-riders, horse-drawn vehicles and the disabled for peaceful enjoyment of the countryside because of a loss of amenity caused by recreational motor vehicles—many riders of which are based abroad.
The amendment does not seek an immediate change in the law. If passed it requires the Secretary of State to return to the business left unfinished by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act and to carry out a public consultation on whether the loophole left by that Act, should now be closed.
The Minister may say that there is another way of dealing with the problem: the use of traffic regulations orders. The highway authorities have had TRO-making powers since 1984, the national parks since 2007, but such orders are costly to make, rarely used and almost invariably are fiercely resisted by the recreational motor vehicle groups—often with threats of legal action. TROs must be made one track at a time. If they could put a stop to the environmental damage being made by motor vehicles, the problem would have been solved long ago. A new approach and ultimately a change in the law is needed.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it was an absolute delight to listen to the excellent speech from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and his call for better-quality access. There is considerable merit in Amendment 8 and especially in Amendment 9, and it probably should be a priority target. I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept them in principle. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas is very important. Could Amendments 8 and 9 be amalgamated into one target?
Of course, this is a very difficult area for the Government to set targets in and that is possibly why the Government have not added it to the clause. If you cannot measure it then you cannot manage it, and as for measuring people’s enjoyment of something, I should love to see how one can make a target for people to enjoy something. However, with time and work, I believe that we can figure out some targets in this area, especially on connecting people with nature.
Every month Natural England publishes its people and nature survey. Despite Covid, there are still very much the same patterns emerging. When one looks at March 2020, before lockdown—an idiotic term which I hate—and compares it with April 2021, one gets roughly the same statistics: 30% had not visited a green space or nature in a 14-day period, and of those who did, the vast majority numerically were older people. The justification in April this year by the 34% of people who had not visited was to stop Covid spreading. That is a noble reason not to go. However, I looked at our previous studies, in what was then called the monitor of engagement with the natural environment, and in 2017 more than 30%, the same figure, had not visited a green space. Exactly 34% said that they had not visited because they were too busy, 23% said health reasons and 18% had no interest whatsoever. The justification or excuse may vary but the numbers stay the same.
However, the other statistic that the survey highlights is that of earnings. Of those earning more than £50,000 per annum, 75% reported a visit to a green and natural space. This is compared to 50% of those earning less than £15,000 per annum. Adults earning more than £50,000 also took three times as many visits as those earning less than £15,000. That confirms the anecdotal evidence of our own eyes. You do not see many black and ethnic-community people in their Range Rovers visiting the Lake District National Park, stately homes, or National Trust properties.
There is of course a big cost element for those who cannot afford the time or money to go far visiting green space, but there is also a cultural problem. I was told in a briefing from the creators of the brilliant London National Park City scheme that they found that children walking to school would prefer to take the slightly longer route round by the shops and the high street rather than the shorter route through the local park or green space. There is thus a problem that even when green space is on their doorstep, many people are not connecting with it. That is why Amendment 9 is so important. I believe that Natural England is in discussions with Defra on what more we can do to connect people with nature, and that could lead to a target.
The briefing we have all received from the Ramblers, Open Spaces Society, and others, cannot identify targets, but suggests three areas where it might be possible to set them. I am glad that they acknowledge that this is not easy. Their first suggested area is proximity. Are there access opportunities close to where people live and work? The second is accessibility. Are different types of users, including disabled people, able to connect with and make use of access to green spaces and good quality paths, and do they feel welcome? The third is quality. Are green spaces of sufficient standard to ensure that people want to use them?
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, as this is my first intervention in Committee, and for the purposes of all the stages of the Bill, I declare my interests as a retired farmer and landowner, chair of an internet travel business and chair of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology research.
Most of these amendments stress the importance of the Government taking seriously the planning of people’s enjoyment of nature and all that the countryside has to offer. Other noble Lords have outlined the advantages for people and their health, and indeed for nature itself. I am pleased to be following the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, with his knowledge and expertise in the subject.
I very much support the principle that the Government should get involved in the promotion of access, as it is no use leaving these things to chance. If it is worth a taxpayer paying land managers to produce a landscape or habitats of which we can be proud, it is vital that the same taxpayer should be enabled, and even encouraged, to enjoy the fruits of their spending. As Professor Dasgupta has indicated, our countryside and its wildlife are extremely valuable. I ask noble Lords: would an artist complete a wonderful painting without thinking about how they were going to display it? Would a drama company put on a play without thinking seriously about attracting an audience? In my view, the taxpayer deserves no less. The Government must set out how they are going to facilitate and improve the public enjoyment of our countryside and its nature.
I will add a note of caution to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said, it is relevant that, while Scotland has a population density of 65 people per square kilometre, and Norway, another country that she mentioned, has 15 people per square kilometre, and the UK has 278 people per square kilometre, for England by itself the figure is actually 432 people per square kilometre. We are a very crowded country, and all land uses therefore have to be carefully planned, although I believe that where access is available it should be well-promoted.
I sat on the Glover review of the management and uses of our national parks and AONBs. We are still waiting for the Government’s response to it, although I am told that it is extremely imminent. I remain hopeful that that response will be a first step in the right direction of improving people’s enjoyment of our natural environment.
I turn to Amendment 58, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. The issue is an old chestnut that this House has touched on many times before, and indeed Governments and local authorities have skirted around it for decades without really resolving it. The NERC Act 2006 tried to put it to bed, as the noble Lord said, and partially succeeded, but the despoilation of green lanes remains a thorny issue. The problem, as he said, is that these lanes, made for use by horses, and by horses and carts and carriages, have become an attraction for four-wheel-drive vehicles, trail bikes and quad bikes. In some rare instances—I stress that they are rare because mostly coexistence works quite well—they have become so popular, and, frankly, so irresponsibly used, that parts of the green lane have become almost impassable mud baths. That often makes those sections impossible to pass for the very horses and carriages that they were originally intended for, and even sometimes for ramblers on foot. Some of the photographs that I have seen are not attractive.
There is also the problem of local farmers who have permitted rights over the green lanes, usually to feed their stock on the nearby hill. On rare occasions, even they have found it hard to get access to their stock because of the state of the green lane. It is not common, as I say, but it is a problem.
When the Select Committee looked at the NERC Act 12 years on, in 2018, we recognised the problems and the controversy between the various users and suggested that if the rules were clear, as well as easy and inexpensive to use, the small number of problem sections could be dealt with by local authorities imposing traffic regulation orders, or TROs. These TROs could either ban motorised vehicles altogether or limit them to summer months, or even just summer weekends, or whatever. But the point is that they have to be put in place cheaply and without bother by the local authorities, which do not have the money to put into them at the moment. Nor is the legal situation very clear. If these problems could be dealt with simply, firmly and, I hope, cheaply, and on a localised basis, that would be a successful result.
The Government’s response to our report was to ask the motor vehicle stakeholder group to produce recommendations for how the TRO process could be used more efficiently by highway authorities. The Government indicated that they would consider bringing forward legislative or regulatory changes in the light of the stakeholder group’s report. But as far as I know, no new enabling regulatory changes have been brought forward, and it would seem that the issue continues to be controversial. I am not sure whether a new consultation, as proposed by the amendment, would actually help the situation—I expect the views of the various participants are by now well known to all. As I say, in 2018, Defra was expecting to bring forward measures to simplify the TRO system very soon, and maybe now it should, frankly, just get on with it.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I put my name to Amendment 8, and it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves what that says given the debate that we have just had. It says
“public access to and enjoyment of the natural environment”,
but it does not say whether that should be urban or rural.
My noble friend Lady Scott emphasised small spaces, and I very much welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who emphasised urban space and greenery, which is much more accessible to the majority of our population. That reminds us of something which has always been true: in the countryside, perhaps as well as in urban areas, once people are at the car park, or wherever they decide to park their car—in a national park, an area of outstanding natural beauty, or by a nature reserve—the amount of travel that they do from that point is extremely limited.
One of the key things about this is public health and social prescribing, which people have been talking about. I am not an expert in that area, but in my role as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, we have decided to work closely with the local health and well-being board to make sure that we have a combined aim and goal to improve people’s lives by their access to the environment and to green spaces, which needs to be frequent rather than occasional—small bites, rather than occasional large sorties into the countryside.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that access to the countryside tends to be fairly limited, but I have to agree with him: during last summer in particular, I saw pictures on television of improvised barbecues and camping on beaches and areas of Dartmoor National Park. That is clearly an issue. But when I think about that I wonder what the equivalent is in an urban area. Yes, there is probably equal aggravation from litter and barbecues in parks, or whatever, but the point is that, in urban contexts, normally there are people there, and there is a budget, to clear this up. In the countryside, national parks, and in particular areas of outstanding natural beauty, have very small budgets for rectifying these sorts of issues that are created by minorities.
As the noble Viscount said, there is an issue with fly-tipping; it is an increasing problem and I suspect that, last year, it was partly because tips—I have been told off for using that word, and should say public waste disposal facilities—were closed for quite a long period of time. There is a real need there. I identify entirely with farmers who find that there is waste-tipping on their land and suddenly it becomes their responsibility. We somehow need to transfer the way that it works in urban and suburban areas, where there is a community responsibility to put that fly-tipping right, to the countryside. Obviously, the most important thing is to try to prevent it in the first place.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate on a very important issue. I will concentrate on Amendments 8 and 56, which are both in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, but also in the name of my noble friend Lady Quin, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. As we have heard, these would require rather than enable the Government to set legally binding, long-term targets to increase public access to and enjoyment of our natural environment.
First, however, I will say a few words about Amendment 58 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, which addresses the issue of motor vehicles driving for recreational purposes on unsealed tracks. I thank him for his introduction and for bringing this important issue to the attention of your Lordships’ House and of the Minister. I have been involved with the Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement, or GLEAM, and with Friends of the Lake District. Both are concerned about the deterioration of a number of these lanes due to the large increase in motor vehicle usage over the past 20 years or so. These lanes are an important part of the Lake District’s cultural heritage and were of course originally made for pedestrian and horse-drawn traffic. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, himself mentioned the problem in the national parks, and it is only getting worse.
Friends of the Lake District believes that there is a strong case for introducing traffic regulation orders, or TROs, to restrict motorised use of the lanes to preserve their natural beauty and tranquillity. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, also mentioned this and talked about how TROs could be used effectively. However, I was also interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who believes that we need to look at other solutions. Will the Minister listen sympathetically to the concerns that have been expressed about the damage that is being caused? This may be quite niche but it has a big impact.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, introduced Amendments 9 and 57, which have the important aims of connecting people to nature. He also talked about getting their buy-in to the behaviour changes that may be needed. Perhaps we do not pay enough attention to this.
Amendments 8 and 56 were ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. I was interested to hear her idea of creating a new national framework for access to open spaces and nature, so that we properly enable public access. She also made the important point that we need to make sure that we pull together different parts of policy and legislation. For example, ELMS, planning and health and well-being all need to come together. I was also interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on this area.
I am very fortunate in that I live right on the edge of the Lake District National Park, so I have some of the most beautiful countryside in the UK right on my doorstep. I can regularly enjoy fell walking with my family and my dog. This means that I also know that our personal experiences with nature are powerful. As the Committee has heard, numerous studies have demonstrated how important being active and getting outdoors in the fresh air are for both our physical and mental health and well-being. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, focused on the public health elements and the importance of access to open space. This is especially true when we are young, with nature acting as both an active playground and a place for curiosity and learning. Whether children are active in nature or not links to childhood obesity and to their mental health and happiness.
The Covid pandemic has shone a spotlight on our need to be outside enjoying nature. For those who have been less able to get outside, for example people without gardens or with less access to parks, the impact on mental health can be severely detrimental. The pandemic has also highlighted the fact that, for many people, easy access to the great outdoors and enjoyment of nature is far from guaranteed. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made the point that, if you want a fitter and healthier society, access is clearly important. On the subject of the pandemic, I refer to what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said about the need to enjoy the countryside responsibly. It has been pretty appalling in the Lake District, with a huge increase in litter, fires, trees being chopped down and campsites abandoned. It is very sad for local communities when that happens. I get so frustrated: they come here because it is beautiful, so why have they trashed it? This brings me on to the points made by my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green. We really need to educate people and teach them the countryside code. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, also mentioned the importance of education about our natural environment.
For many years, the connection with nature has been steadily declining for parts of our society. Fewer than a quarter of children regularly use their local patch of nature, compared to over half of all adults when they were children. This lack of access to nature is exacerbated by inequality. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made an important contribution to the debate by bringing the Committee’s attention to the statistics in Natural England’s people and nature survey, which support this. He also made an important contribution on what we need to do to try to turn this around. We know that, in urban areas, the most affluent 20% of wards have five times the number of parks or general green spaces, excluding gardens, per person that the most deprived 10% have. Similarly, in areas where more than 40% of residents are black or minority ethnic, there is 11 times less green space than in areas where residents are largely white. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, talked about access for those who had difficulty in getting out and about in the countryside. He particularly mentioned people with disabilities, though there is no guarantee that we can all have this access.
Clearly, we need to address this. The Government’s 25-year environment plan, which is due to be incorporated, as we know, as the first environmental plan, includes a policy aim to ensure that the natural environment can be used by everyone. Why is the opportunity not being taken to address this more directly in the Bill? Does the Minister accept that these amendments would go some way to start to improve access to nature for everyone, not just those like myself, who are fortunate to live close to nature or who can afford to go out and enjoy green spaces.
The changes brought about by these amendments would ensure that access to nature is a core consideration in the development of future policy. I think that they are needed because, as published, the Bill fails to commit the Government to act. I urge the Minister to give these proposals serious consideration.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions and agree that the Covid pandemic has underlined the important role of nature in our health and well-being in so many different ways. Before I go any further, I sincerely apologise to the House for not having been in my place when the debate began. I extend my apologies to everyone taking part.
Regarding Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, and Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, on environmental targets, the Government considered adding enjoyment of the natural environment as a priority area for setting targets. However, there are substantial uncertainties, as numerous noble Lords have pointed out, over how to objectively measure these areas to be able to set a meaningful and achievable target now.
While there is evidence that engaging with nature can and does benefit people’s health and well-being in many ways, the evidence necessary to support setting a legally binding target for this area is still developing. For example, increased footfall may reflect not increased access but increased human population in an area. The Government are researching how to objectively measure this area and the best mechanisms to drive change. However, I reassure noble Lords that the Bill’s framework allows for long-term targets to be set on any aspect of the natural environment or people’s enjoyment of it in future, if the evidence base develops.
Before I move on to Amendments 56 and 57, I acknowledge the comments of my noble friend Lord Lucas, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the need to secure consent in relation to policy of any sort, particularly environmental policy. It is so important that, when we arrive at solutions, they are thought up in such a way as to bring people with us. If we fail to do that, the risk is always there that we exhaust the public appetite for environmental policy. I have seen that on numerous occasions, where good initiatives have met with public opposition because of the manner in which they have been introduced. It is so important that we get that right.
Amendments 56 and 57, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, are on environmental improvement plans. Connecting people with nature to improve health and well-being is a core objective of the 25-year environment plan. We anticipate that the plan will set the benchmark for future environmental improvement plans, as outlined in Clause 7 and the Explanatory Notes. However, the primary purpose of the environmental improvement plans is to set out the steps that the Government intend to take to improve the environment. Therefore, we do not necessarily want to give equal prominence to people’s enjoyment in environmental improvement plans, although, in practice, future Governments are absolutely free to do so.
Public access to, and people’s enjoyment of, the natural environment can in some instances have negative impacts on it, as my noble friend Lord Randall and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, explained. For example, too many visitors to beaches can negatively affect wildlife and their habitats, including through the litter that is so often infuriatingly left behind. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made this point in relation to the Lake District, and it is something that I have seen myself. When I was Member of Parliament for Richmond Park, I saw piles of fast-food packaging left in the most beautiful spots in the park, which were chosen precisely because they were beautiful. It is mind-boggling and tells us that there is a need for some form of education, combined with incentives or disincentives, when it comes to leaving litter in the natural environment. Our enjoyment of nature cannot take precedence over our stewardship of that environment for the future.
I turn to the point made compellingly by my noble friend Lord Trenchard about the tensions that can exist between different groups. It is worth emphasising that Defra’s work to improve access always seeks to balance the needs of users and landowners. The Government work closely with stakeholders, representing as many interests as we possibly can, and landowners can formally object to proposals to create national trails across their land. Rural communities—this is a point worth stressing because it is not always about people coming in from miles away—can benefit from improved access, according to our evidence. Recent surveys show that 51% of walkers along the coast are local people, not those coming from miles away.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, I have had three requests to speak after the Minister, so we will take them in turn for him to respond. I have the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. We will hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, first.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con) [V]
I am most grateful for the opportunity to come in after the Minister. I wish to support the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Cameron of Dillington, in their Amendment 58. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has given us an explanation of the omissions from the NERC Act 2006 for part of the green lanes provision. Both noble Lords referred to the abuse that that has involved.
The advantage of this amendment is—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
The Minister will respond to the first part of the question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will try to get this issue dealt with.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
The time for the noble Lord to do that may be tight but let us try. The Minister will respond to the points already made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and we will then move on to the other speakers. If, at the end, we can get the noble Viscount reconnected, we will come back to him.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for half of his question. He got to the point of echoing some of the concerns which were raised by previous speakers. Because we did not get to the substance of his question, I would be happy to arrange to contact him tomorrow with a view to discussing the issue—whatever it is—with my officials.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his responses to my amendments, but if he wants an example of how a connection with nature could be measured, he need not look further than the Glover review. Proposal 8, as I remember, is a night under the stars in a national landscape for every child; that is a pretty good target to aim at, and one which would go a long way toward achieving what I would like to see achieved at least over the long term. Once a child has done that sort of thing, they tend to bring their parents back, if it is properly organised.
I understand the difficulties that my noble friend faces, but there are things that, given the incentive of something in the Bill, could be done. An information system, for instance—a decent national online database of parks—would be something which people could use, and would then be a vehicle for the countryside code and enable areas to be set aside during the nesting season or lambing season, so that the relationship between the rambler and the farmer could be better moderated. There are things which the Government could do in this area if they set their mind to it. I have been really encouraged by what Natural England has been saying in this area. If the Government have a change of heart, I shall be delighted.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I can reassure my noble friend that it does not require the Government to have a change of heart, as we fully support access to nature for all the reasons which have been described so well by so many noble Lords. Indeed, just a few months ago the Defra Secretary committed £4 million for a project aimed at tackling mental ill-health through green social prescribing, which goes to the heart of some of the issues raised today. We want everyone to have access to a healthy, abundant and diverse environment, and the Environment Bill as a whole is an attempt to try to improve both our environment and access and enjoyment of it. Of course, we have much more to do and I am interested in the examples he has cited.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in his response the Minister referred to the issue of littering, particularly personal responsibility for littering, but we were earlier talking about waste reduction targets. The people who profit from the production of that litter are of course fast-food companies and multinational food production companies. When it finally arrives, the bottle deposit scheme will be an important area of this. Will the Minister acknowledge that this is not just a personal issue but a case where we have to see system change, that multinational companies and fast-food outlets have to look at the ways their food is sold, and the packaging they produce, and that this needs to be seen as more than a personal problem?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I could not agree more. There is of course an element of personal responsibility; it is not always down to the Government, but the noble Baroness is absolutely right. That is the whole point of our approach to extended producer responsibility, and that can apply to anything. It is very much my hope that we will be at a point not too far off where fast-food companies are financially responsible for the waste generated by their activities. We would see, the moment one creates a financial dynamic of that sort, that companies will do anything they can either to design waste out of the way they do business or to minimise the amount of waste they know they will generate. I do not think there is a better way of doing it, but clearly having created the apparatus, which we will do through this Bill, we then must use it, and use it properly. If we do, we can get where we need to in relation to waste.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We shall have one more try at reaching the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. If this does not work, the Minister has offered to contact him directly. Viscount Bridgeman?
Viscount Bridgeman (Con) [V]
My Lords, thank you very much. I am most grateful and I apologise for the problems.
The advantage of this amendment is that it is easy for the general public to appreciate: quite simply, it requires the Secretary of State to institute a public consultation affecting unsealed tracks. “Unsealed” is an unqualified word, and it means all—I repeat, all—unsealed tracks. Here, I take issue with my noble friend Lord Trenchard. A lot of thought went into the framing of that amendment, and I suggest to your Lordships that “unsealed” is sufficiently definitive.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, it does not seek a change in the law and it does not aim to be confrontational against the users of off-road motor vehicles; it simply seeks to ensure that any proposal for the use of these green lanes by such users is as widely aired with the general public as possible. This is in line with the lead amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, about public access to and general knowledge of the countryside.
There is one beneficial effect which I hope the passing of the amendment will bring, and here I venture to disagree with my two noble colleagues. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, the TROs are very divisive, costly and lead to unpleasantness and legal actions. But, at the end of the day, the general lanes of this country are a priceless part of our national heritage, and they are beautiful. However, it has to be faced that any use for recreational purposes by motorbikes, quad bikes, et cetera, renders them ugly. I have said that we do not wish to have a confrontation with those users, but compromise is always probably necessary, and I suggest that it is just a reasonable and small additional step to safeguard our precious inheritance.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for his question. I certainly do not pretend to be an expert on this, but my understanding is that the use of motorised vehicles is already regulated and, therefore, limited to access routes classed as byways. My understanding—I think this is what the noble Viscount said—is that it is not about creating new laws or new restrictions; it is about implementing the rules already in existence. If he disagrees with that and thinks that it is a matter of tweaking the laws, I am very happy to hear from him after this debate—not tonight, I hope, but perhaps tomorrow.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I am very pleased that I tabled these amendments because they have enabled the Committee to surface a number of almost apparently contradictory themes. There seems to be a general sense that access is a good thing, but only on certain terms and only if people do not do certain things. It has really highlighted the tensions involved, whether greater access or better access. In many ways, the debate has made the case for a more strategic approach on the part of government, because it is the only way some of these things can be resolved.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his broadly constructive response. I was slightly struck by the irony that it appears that all sorts of government initiatives and funds are being put into this, but they are not really being joined up in the way that they probably should be. I will bet that there is already a whole set of targets established in every one of these funds, because that is the way government funds always work. I think it is possible to set targets in this way, so I hope the Minister will give a little more thought about how he can work with user groups and other interested people to think about this.
Finally, for me, this is always about access to nature; it is not just about access to the countryside. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made a really important contribution when he focused first on the financial and economic inequalities, but also on the importance of these smaller local green spaces. There are many people in our crowded island who, sadly, will never get out into the countryside. That does not mean we should not aspire to it, but they will find it difficult. It just makes it all the more important that they have access to good-quality space close to where they live. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.