House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
I have established a civil society and youth advisory council, which is the first of its kind at any COP. It is working with the UK presidency to deliver a successful summit. The co-chairs are youth climate activists, one from the global north and one from the global south. I also meet civil society and youth groups on my international visits, to ensure that their voices are heard.
Andy Carter
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that children in our schools can play a crucial part in helping us to get to net zero by becoming young climate leaders? In my constituency there are groups such as Warrington Youth Voice, which last month organised its first green schools conference, and pupils at Penketh Primary School have come together to take steps to reduce energy use in their homes. Will my right hon. Friend encourage Members of the House to reach out to schools in their constituencies, and build greater understanding of the work of COP26?
Alok Sharma
What an excellent question. I commend my hon. Friend for the work he is doing to encourage youth climate activists in his constituency, such as those in Warrington Youth Voice and at Penketh Primary School. As he knows, last month we sent a COP26 schools pack, designed to engage students with climate action, to schools across the UK. In May, MPs also received a UK engagement pack.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
We are pressing all countries to come forward with mid-century net-zero commitments, and aligned ambitious 2030 emissions reduction targets. We have seen some progress. When the UK took on the COP26 presidency, less than 30% of the global economy was covered by a net-zero emissions target, and that figure is now 70%.
Sarah Olney
The Government claim that the UK has reduced its emissions footprint by 42% since 1990, which is a commendable feat. That has been achieved in part by offshoring manufacturing and outsourcing many emissions to countries such as China that produce the goods we consume. If we factor in those emissions, the UK emissions reduction is possibly as little as 10% to 15%. Ahead of COP26, what steps will the Minister take to include the full scope of our emissions in the accounting, including those arising from UK consumption, supply chains, and international aviation and shipping?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady talks about aviation and shipping, and we have included those in the sixth carbon budget. The role of the UK COP presidency is to ensure climate action and ambition across the whole UK, and that is what we are working to deliver.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Keeping the 1.5°C limit alive is now, quite rightly, one of the Government’s stated aims of COP26. Although we do not doubt the COP President’s personal commitment to delivering on that objective, the Government as a whole are patently still not doing enough. If we are to markedly increase the global ambition for 2030 targets, forge a coalition with vulnerable nations to hold the major emitters to account, and mobilise the climate finance that is essential to unlocking any agreement, we need sustained engagement and focus from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor, and we need it now. With just over 100 days until this critical summit, does the COP26 President recognise that if senior members of the Government do not raise their game quickly, there is a real risk of failure in Glasgow in November?
Alok Sharma
There is a concerted effort across the whole of Government to ensure that we press other countries to come forward with ambition. We are, of course, seen around the world as a leader on climate action, in terms of both the actions we have taken and the commitments we have made. The Prime Minister has regular dialogue with world leaders, as do the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary with their counterparts.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
Current carbon budgets will see the world miss the 1.5°C target, with all the disastrous consequences that will have. The UK’s portion of that carbon budget is up to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 higher than is proportional to its population. France put in the effort for global improvement in the Paris agreement, but we have seen nothing comparable from the UK Government. When will we see that change? What conversations is the right hon. Gentleman having with his Cabinet colleagues about the immediate actions their Departments should be taking to reduce the UK’s carbon contribution?
Alok Sharma
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady. Since 2000 the UK has decarbonised faster than any other G20 nation, and our national determined contribution of at least 68% reduction in emissions on a 1990 base year by 2030 is world leading, as is the commitment in our carbon budget. We are doing our bit but, of course, there is always room for all of us to do more.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Has Britain lost her credibility when asking developing nations to pay to decarbonise, following the Government’s affirmation yesterday of their cut to UK international aid spending?
Alok Sharma
I have seen at first hand, when I was Secretary of State for International Development and, indeed, in other roles, that UK support continues to transform millions of lives for the better across the world. The hon. Gentleman will know that we will continue to spend over £10 billion this year in aid, and of course we now have certainty that we will be returning to the 0.7% target.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
For COP26, we want clean power to be the most attractive option for new power generation for any country. This presents economic opportunities for every country choosing clean energy. The UK Government will showcase a variety of organisations and technologies at COP26 in the blue and green zones, including innovative energy solutions, green technologies and services that can help fight climate change and support resilience.
Richard Graham
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the contracts for difference auction that is happening in November, shortly before COP26, is a wonderful opportunity to ensure that there is a separate pot for marine energy, which can give opportunities for some of our great new technologies around the coastline to shine? Does she also agree that COP26 provides an opportunity for us to showcase some of those technologies to visiting delegations from abroad, particularly Asia? Mr Speaker, you will be interested to hear that a British company is the second biggest investor in renewables in the Philippines and will be launching a new large fund on the London stock exchange this autumn to invest in further renewable opportunities in Asia.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Just to confirm, the next contracts for difference auction will open in December this year and will be our biggest yet, firmly charting our path towards net zero. Technologies such as wave and tidal stream projects are eligible to compete in pot 2 for CfD auctions, and we will publish specific allocation round parameters in advance of the auction. The Government continue to provide support to UK companies that are looking to export tidal technologies and other marine renewables abroad.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
As I said in response to an earlier question, all Members of Parliament were sent a COP26 pack in May, which provides ideas for engagement on climate issues with their constituents. With regard to attendance at COP26, we will set out more details very shortly on how parliamentarians can register their interest to attend.
Elliot Colburn [V]
Reducing greenhouse emissions and tackling air pollution is a priority for many Carshalton and Wallington residents, not least because we have the Beddington incinerator in my constituency. In the spirit of engagement, I hope to host a local COP26 event later this year to discuss how we can work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What steps is the COP26 President taking to ensure that the public can engage with COP26 and play their part in this important event?
Alok Sharma
I commend my hon. Friend for the work he is doing in hosting a local climate event in his constituency, and I would urge all hon. and right hon. Members to consider doing the same. We are today also launching the local authorities and mayors COP26 engagement pack. Of course, we want everyone to play their part in taking climate action; I have always said that we want this to be the most inclusive COP ever.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The UK recognises the serious and unequivocal threat that climate change poses to our planet, and that it can indeed undermine the enjoyment of human rights. The Paris agreement preamble states that respecting and promoting our human rights is fundamental to effective climate implementation. Therefore, human rights are a cross-cutting consideration in all climate action, so we will be working with all countries this year to achieve an ambitious, inclusive and shared outcome from COP26 to help safeguard human rights.
Steven Bonnar
I thank the Minister for that answer. Scotland was not only the first country in the world to declare a climate emergency, but the first in the world to establish a dedicated climate justice fund—a fund that was recently doubled by the SNP Scottish Government in Edinburgh. Will the UK Government, ahead of COP Glasgow, match Scotland’s ambitions? Will this Government create such a fund, and will the Minister and the COP26 President ensure that the focus of COP26 is placed squarely on the rights of those who will be affected first and foremost by the climate emergency?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As my right hon. Friend the COP26 President set out, the UK remains one of the largest donors in supporting a number of areas, including, obviously, humanitarian assistance and humanitarian rights. I would be interested to hear more on the details of the climate justice fund to understand the premise of it, but the UK continues to have an absolutely clear commitment to that.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
The Committee that I chair has been working with Departments across Whitehall to develop our plans to deliver on our carbon budgets and, indeed, our net zero commitments. The Government consider geothermal energy a low-carbon technology that is within the scope of our new £270 million green heat network fund, which supports the commercialisation of low-carbon heat network projects and opened for applications earlier this month.
Steve Double
The COP President will know from his recent visit that Cornwall is leading the way in the development of geothermal energy in the UK with two wells being drilled and many more planned. However, the people developing this new technology need the Government to back it to ensure that we can realise its potential, and they need certainty to make their plans in the near future. Will he ensure that the Government come forward with a renewable heat incentive for geothermal as soon as possible?
Alok Sharma
May I say that I very much enjoyed my visit to Eden Geothermal with my hon. Friend? It was particularly pleasing to note that some of those working in the project had made the transition from the oil and gas sector owing to their transferable engineering skills. As I set out, the fund has been launched, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further.
Mr Speaker
Philip Dunne has technical problems. Let us go to Alec Shelbrooke.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
The UK presidency is focused on delivering a successful COP26 with ambitious outcomes across mitigation, adaptation and finance. We will use our presidency year to champion the outcome, maintaining close collaboration with our partners and, indeed, the COP27 presidency to make those commitments a reality.
Alec Shelbrooke
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work he is doing. I urge him to put in place mechanisms that could quickly address issues that may blow the objectives off course, as has happened since Paris.
Alok Sharma
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As well as pushing for net zero and 2030 emissions reduction targets, we are indeed asking countries to set out their long-term strategies to demonstrate how they will turn ambition into action. In addition, we want to resolve the outstanding issue of transparency in the Paris rulebook, which will allow for reporting by countries of progress on climate action.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan sets out our blueprint for a green industrial revolution. The plan commits to investments in green technologies and industries, and leverages billions of bounds of private sector investment to create and support up to 250,000 green jobs across the UK. It is a clear plan to build back greener from the covid pandemic. The Government will publish their net zero strategy before COP26.
Suzanne Webb
Two weeks ago, I went on a fantastic community litter pick with the fantastic Hannah Picken, who leads a local environmental group called Wild Earth Movement. Within an hour, we collected 244 kg of litter and waste—a quarter of a tonne in old terms, so it was pretty significant—the majority of which was plastic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that individuals need to do more and show personal responsibility for us to achieve the net zero carbon goal?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend is leading by example. I commend Hannah and her local group, the Wild Earth Movement, for their impressive clean-up operation—but, of course, it is a depressing one to have to do. The challenge we have is to educate and encourage all our citizens to make this wonderful group’s activities redundant by stopping plastic pollution. Through our Together for Our Planet campaign, we are building awareness and understanding of COP26 in every part of the UK to help educate our children and families on the behaviours to change so that we are all part of that positive impact on our carbon footprint.
Paul Blomfield [V]
The success of the UK presidency requires leadership at home. The Government have pledged to consider the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation for near-zero emission iron ore steel- making by 2035, but a plan for decarbonising steel production must be published before COP26. Hydrogen is among the emerging technologies offering solutions, and its use is progressing across the rest of Europe. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit recently reported on 23 pilot projects—planned or live—across several countries producing 10 million tonnes of clean steel annually by 2026. Are the Government considering hydrogen-based pilots as part of their plan for steel?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Gentleman will know that we will shortly publish our hydrogen strategy, which will set out in much more detail the commitment that the Government are going to make to that developing technology, and a £250 million fund will be available in due course for pilot projects to develop those skills.
Vicky Foxcroft [V]
I am often contacted by young constituents who care passionately about climate change and want to see Ministers taking bold action. The UK’s credibility as COP president rests on climate action at home. The Government have set legally binding net zero targets but are currently off track to meet their fourth and fifth carbon budgets, which are calibrated for previous, more lenient targets. When does the Minister expect the UK to have its house in order so that I can let my constituents know that their words are not falling on deaf ears?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I would be thrilled for the hon. Lady to go back and say to her constituents that in putting carbon budget 6 into law, as I did just a few weeks ago, we are driving up not only the ambition, but the policy making, frameworks and business models that will help industry to decarbonise and us to change the way that we travel and live in our houses of the future to ensure that we are all part of the solution to meeting that net zero target by 2050.
Matt Western
Recent United Nations analysis makes it clear that the current climate pledges will achieve emission reductions of only 1% by the end of this critical decade, not the 45% required to stay below 1.5° C. What has the Minister done to pressure large emitters such as Australia, Japan, South Korea and Russia who have merely resubmitted old pledges or, in the case of Brazil, have backtracked even further, to step up and do their fair share?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The COP presidency has an incredibly important role in drawing everyone together and driving up ambition. As the COP26 President set out in answer to an earlier question, we have shifted the dial in terms of the ambition brought forward through nationally determined contributions by many countries, but there is much more to do and we are under no illusions that the challenges that we all face as a planet to meet that are yet to be resolved. We continue to work tirelessly as a team and across the globe to encourage more ambition.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Businesses have a key role in tackling climate change, which we will showcase in the UK managed spaces of COP26. Businesses were able to apply for the expression of interest process and will also be able to participate through other delegations and in the action zone organised by the UN and the high-level planet champions.
Mrs Murray
Cornwall is taking the lead in the emerging green economy, particularly looking at the use of local lithium to store electricity. Will my right hon. Friend promote Cornwall’s great potential at the summit and advise businesses of any opportunities?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Local government has a key role to play in tackling climate change and meeting net zero targets, and we are keen to ensure that there is representation at the summit from cities and regions across the UK. My hon. Friend will know that, following the G7 in June, the Government have backed a major drive to make Cornwall the first net zero region in the UK. I am sure that she will be leading on getting the maximum impact for her constituents from the town deals for Penzance, St Ives and Camborne, worth £65 million, up to £1 million of innovation funding and energy efficiency, power generation and energy storage for Cornish businesses, and the opportunities for Cornwall to pilot the new e-bike support scheme.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)
Last week, we set out our high-level two-week programme for COP26. The conference will open with a world leaders’ summit followed by a range of themed days of activity, including on finance, energy, youth, nature, adaptation, gender, science, transport and the built environment. These days will also be an opportunity to showcase specific global action on tackling climate change. I look forward to welcoming parliamentarians to Glasgow and we will very shortly be inviting Members of both Houses to formally register their interest for attendance at COP26.
Harriett Baldwin
As the president-designate says, it is not just world leaders and Governments who are needed to make COP26 a success, but parliamentarians from around the world. As chair of the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, we will be hosting events for parliamentarians around the world, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will encourage his officials to accredit as many parliamentarians from international delegations as possible.
Alok Sharma
Obviously we want to ensure that we have a physical event and that those who apply have an opportunity to try to get accredited. As I said, for parliamentarians in this and the other place, we will be opening a registration process shortly.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
The Copenhagen summit of 2009 was undone by deep mistrust of the developed world by developing countries. Rather than learning from that, rich countries are still failing to deliver on the promised $100 billion of climate finance and the billions of vaccine doses still required by poorer countries. Yesterday, shamefully, the Prime Minister decided to press ahead with the cut in our aid spending. When the COP26 President went to see the PM yesterday, did he explain that COP26 is not some international photo opportunity, but a complex and fragile negotiation, and that the aid cut simply deepens mistrust, damages our moral standing and undermines our COP presidency?
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Gentleman raises two issues. On vaccines, he will know that we now have an offer open so that any accredited delegates who are not able to get vaccinated in their home country are able to receive vaccinations through the programme that we are setting up. Secondly, I can tell him that there is huge appreciation for the UK’s leadership on climate action around the world. That is based on conversations that I have day in, day out with world leaders.
Edward Miliband
The COP26 President knows that world leaders and others are asking him why the UK is the only G7 country cutting aid spending in the year that we are hosting the COP. He knows that delivering support to developing countries is not just morally right, but essential to building a coalition to pressure the world’s largest emitters.
The most significant of those emitters is China. To have a chance of keeping global warming to 1.5°, we need China to ensure that its emissions peak and start to decline by 2025 at the latest. Does the COP26 President agree? If so, can he tell us what the Prime Minister is doing to engage directly with China on the issue and persuade it to step up?
Alok Sharma
We are engaged with all big emitters; as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am travelling around the globe talking to different countries. To come back to his point about aid spending, I just point out that this year we will spend more on aid as a percentage of our GNI than the US, Japan, Canada or Italy.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. That is precisely why, as part of our work, we are aiming to support countries to make a clean energy transition to solar, to wind power and to other renewables.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
I congratulate all local areas and local leaders who are doing their bit on climate action. As I said, today we are launching the local authorities and Mayors engagement pack, which I hope local authorities and Mayors will use to encourage climate action across their areas.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The UK is already leading the way on tackling air pollution. The Government are backing a £3.8 billion plan to clean up transport and tackle air pollution, investing in green transport and working with local authorities just like the City of Westminster. My hon. Friend will be keen to read the transport decarbonisation plan, which will be published later today and will set out the world’s first “greenprint” for decarbonised transport and clean air.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
Alok Sharma
We are supporting industrial clusters around the world, as the hon. Lady will know from the 10-point plan that the Prime Minister published at the end of last year, and we are seeing action across the country. She will know that the Government have recently funded some new offshore wind ports and we have seen the investment that is going into battery manufacturing for electric vehicles.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Alok Sharma
I would just point out to the hon. Gentleman that MCI has secured only about a third of the market availability for hotel rooms, and that there are alternative options for booking accommodation, which are still available. If he has specific issues, I would be happy to speak to him separately.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that a British sign language interpretation of the proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
While Sunday’s result may not have been the one we were all hoping for, I know that the whole House will want to congratulate Gareth Southgate and the England squad on their fantastic achievements over the last month. The nation is proud of each and every one of them.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Andy Slaughter
I second the Prime Minister’s support for our outstanding England team and players, but it is perhaps a pity that it did not come sooner from him and the Home Secretary. We all know the importance of double vaccination, especially against the delta or Johnson variant of the virus, but in Hammersmith and Fulham, despite the hard work of our local NHS, council and volunteers, only 36% of adults have been double-jabbed, so will the Prime Minister think again before recklessly removing all barriers to infection and transmission on 19 January? Will he keep the regulations on mask wearing and, like the Mayor of London, keep fighting the virus until it is beat?
The Prime Minister
If we had followed the hon. Gentleman’s precepts—he campaigned vehemently to stay in the European Union—we would not have achieved the fastest vaccine roll-out of any European country or vaccinated a higher proportion than any European population. That is the reality. As for his criticism of the road map, I respectfully point out to the hon. Gentleman that the month is July, not January.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It should be obvious that the Cabinet is as inclusive as the English football team, and I think that some of these criticisms are misplaced. Mr Speaker, I welcome your words at the beginning of Tuesday’s debate and the Prime Minister’s first paragraph on the Treasury minute from Monday. Can we agree that a vote in this House does not amend an Act of Parliament passed by both Houses? Are we expecting a similar debate in another place? Can I suggest to the Prime Minister that, instead of leaping from 0.5% to 0.7% at some stage in the future, we step towards it, because a 40% increase in one year would be ludicrous? Perhaps the Chancellor could consider going to 0.55%, 0.6%, 0.65% and then 0.7%.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much for his opening point. On official development assistance, of course I can give him the reassurance that we will continue to follow the law, and he will have heard clearly what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had to say from this Dispatch Box and what I have said. We want to return to 0.7% as fast as we can, and when fiscal conditions allow.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I start by thanking the England football team for everything they have given this country over the last six weeks. I am so proud of this young, diverse and humble team and everything they represent. They are the very best of modern Britain and everything I know this country can be.
Does the Prime Minister think it was wrong to criticise the England team’s decision to oppose racism by taking the knee as “gesture politics”?
The Prime Minister
I agree very much with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about the England team, and I repeat that I want to thank each and every one of them for what they did and the incredible campaign they ran during the Euro 2020 championship. They represent the very best of our country, and I repeat that I utterly condemn and abhor the racist outpourings that we saw on Sunday night.
Today we are taking practical steps to ensure that the football banning order regime is changed, so that if a person is guilty of racist online abuse of footballers, they will not be going to the match—no ifs, no buts, no exemptions and no excuses.
Keir Starmer
I am sorry, but that just will not wash. It rings hollow.
Let me remind the Prime Minister and the House. On 7 June, his spokesperson said:
“On taking the knee, specifically, the Prime Minister is more focused on action rather than gestures.”
On 14 June, the Home Secretary said:
“I just don’t support people participating in that type of gesture politics.”
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), a Conservative MP, called it a “ridiculous empty gesture”. There is no point pretending these things were not said.
The England footballer Tyrone Mings said—[Interruption.] I heard “a Labour party member” shouted out. Is that really the response? Is that it? Tyrone Mings said, and the House might want to listen:
“labelling our anti-racism message as ‘Gesture Politics’”
served to “stoke the fire” of racism and hatred. Those are powerful words from someone who has been subjected to racist abuse. He is right, isn’t he?
The Prime Minister
I reiterate our total support for our fantastic England team, and I support them in the way they showed solidarity with their friends who faced racism.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the Home Secretary, let me remind him that she has faced racism and prejudice all her career of a kind that he can never imagine. She has taken practical steps to get black and minority officers into the police in record numbers, of which I am very proud. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister. If his own side do not want to hear him, I am sure the Tea Room will accommodate them. It is very important to listen to what the Prime Minister has to say.
Keir Starmer
Let me be clear. I totally condemn all racism, including that directed at the Home Secretary, but she has got this wrong. The whole country knows it and the Prime Minister’s own MPs know it. In the last few days, everybody has seen that England’s black players have been the target of disgusting racist abuse following Sunday’s match—disgusting.
This is really simple, either the Prime Minister is with the England players in their stand against racism or he can defend his own record, and that of his Ministers and some of his MPs, but he cannot have it both ways. Can he tell the House whether he now regrets failing to condemn those who booed England’s players for standing up to racism? Yes or no.
The Prime Minister
We made it absolutely clear that no one should boo the England team. Following the racist abuse that our players sadly suffered on Sunday night and thereafter, we are now taking practical action. In addition to changing the football banning order regime, last night I met representatives of Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram and I made it absolutely clear to them that we will legislate to address this problem in the online harms Bill. Unless they get hate and racism off their platforms, they will face fines amounting to 10% of their global revenues. We all know they have the technology to do it.
Keir Starmer
The online harms Bill has been promised for three years. I am not sure a 15-minute chat at a garden party moves things forward that significantly. But I want to take the Prime Minister up on what he said about being absolutely clear, because here I have the headline, “Boris Johnson refuses to condemn fans booing England taking the knee”. That is the story and that is the headline, from 6 June. That is absolutely clear, but it is not quite what the Prime Minister is implying today. The story goes on to quote the Prime Minister’s spokesperson saying that the Prime Minister
“fully respects the right of those who choose to…make their feelings known”.
This is about booing; it says that he fully respects their rights. The Home Secretary said that booing was
“a choice for them quite frankly.”
So no condemnation there and no absolute clarity there. When senior Government Ministers and Conservative MPs defend the booing of an anti-racist message, who do they think they are defending, Prime Minister? And why are they defending it?
The Prime Minister
Nobody defends booing of the England side. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman continues to attack the Home Secretary—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister. I want to know the answer, and I expect the Opposition to listen to the answer.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We love and admire the England side and what they did. They represent the best of our country. Nobody defends booing the England side. But what the Home Secretary has been trying to do all her life is not just fight racism, but take practical steps to advance the cause of black and minority ethnic groups, which she has done successfully, notably in the police. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is chucking this kind of thing around, may I ask him now to retract this leaflet I have here that was produced by the Labour party during the Batley and Spen by-election, which was condemned by his own MPs as “dog-whistle racism”?
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister is not kidding anyone in this House, he is not kidding the public and he is not even kidding his own MPs. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), a Conservative MP, has said:
“The painful truth is that”
Tyrone Mings
“is completely right.
Very uncomfortable with the position we Conservatives are needlessly forcing ourselves into.”
So, Prime Minister, behind you they don’t believe you, and neither do we. We can all see what has happened here. The Government have been trying to stoke a culture war and they have realised that they are on the wrong side and now they hope that nobody has noticed. Why else would a Conservative MP boast that he is not watching his own team? Why else would another Conservative MP say that Marcus Rashford spends too much time “playing politics”, when he is actually trying to feed children that the Government will not? And why will the Prime Minister refuse time and time again, even now, to condemn those who boo our players for standing up against racism? What is it that this England team symbolises that this Conservative party is so afraid of?
The Prime Minister
The House will judge for itself the quality of the question that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just put. I think the whole House is united, including our distinguished Members from Scotland, in admiration of the England team—of every single member of that squad and what they did. We stick up for them, and what we are doing is taking practical steps to fight racism, changing the football banning order regime and fining the online companies. By the way, we will use more legislation if we have to, just as we used the threat of legislation to stop the European super league. We will get on with delivering for the people of this country. We will get on with vaccinating the people of this country, while the Opposition continue to vacillate. We will continue to immunise the people of this country, while the Opposition improvise and dart around. I do not want to engage in a political culture war of any kind; I want to get on with delivering for the people of this country—he simply wants to get on with dithering.
Keir Starmer
He does not want to engage in a culture war and point scoring—give me a break. Football is a game and racism is not, Prime Minister. That is why many of us have been involved in the charity Show Racism the Red Card for years. Far from giving racism the red card, the Prime Minister gave it the green light. I will tell you the worst kind of gesture politics, Mr Speaker: putting an England shirt on over a shirt and tie while not condemning those booing is the worst kind of gesture.
Finally, I want to ask the Prime Minister about the reported amnesty for crimes committed during the troubles in Northern Ireland. I worked in Northern Ireland for six years with the Policing Board and the police and I have prosecuted terrorists as the Director of Public Prosecutions, so I know how difficult and sensitive the issue is. But a blanket amnesty, including for terrorists, is plain wrong.
I was in Northern Ireland last week, and it is absolutely clear that the Government’s amnesty is not supported by the political parties in Northern Ireland and it is not supported by victims’ groups. Last Thursday, I spoke to victims of terrorism at the WAVE Trauma Centre in north Belfast; they have not even been properly consulted on the proposal. If things are to move forward in Northern Ireland, any discussion has to start with the victims. Politicians in London cannot simply draw a line under terrorism and other crimes and then force it on those most affected. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister looks up; let him look up and let him hear, because I want to quote Julie Hambleton. Her sister Maxine was among the 21 people killed by the IRA in the Birmingham pub bombings—that is Julie Hambleton, Prime Minister. She says:
“Tell me Prime Minister, if one of your loved ones was blown up beyond recognition, where you were only able to identify your son or daughter by their fingernails…would you be so quick to”
grant their murderers an amnesty and propose
“such obscene legislation”?
What does the Prime Minister have to say to Julie—she is listening—and other victims like her?
The Prime Minister
I think that the whole House will acknowledge the suffering of victims like Julie and their families. Of course, nothing I say or can do now can in any way mitigate her loss. That is clear. But it is also true that the people of Northern Ireland must, if we possibly can allow them to, move forwards now.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the proposals that are being introduced—the House will hear about them in more detail later from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—are measured, balanced and have a wide degree of support, if I may say so, from former Labour Prime Ministers and former Labour leaders who are of considerably more distinction than the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He will recall that it was under a Labour Administration that many terrorists were unfortunately given, effectively, an amnesty. They were allowed to escape the full consequences of their crimes, as he knows very well. That is the reality.
This is of course no consolation to people like Julie, but the sad fact remains that there are many members of the armed services who continue to face the threat of vexatious prosecutions well into their 70s and 80s and later. We are finally bringing forward a solution to this problem to enable the Province of Northern Ireland to draw a line under the troubles and to enable the people of Northern Ireland to move forward. Someone with greater statesmanship and clarity of vision would have seen that and given the proposals a fair wind.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I yield to no one in my admiration for the Environment Agency, but in this case I thank my hon. Friend because it is not, in my view, sorting the problem out fast enough. I am fed up with this issue being raised with me. We must stop the stink, and I want the air around Walleys Quarry to be of alpine freshness before too long.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Let me begin by congratulating the England team on reaching the final, which was an incredible achievement, but the tragedy of the tournament was the undercurrent of racism that was ultimately targeted at three young men: Rashford, Sancho and Saka. Wherever there is racism, it falls on all of us to face it down and to call it out, and it is shameful that it took until last night for the Prime Minister to meet with the main social media companies and finally wake up to the fact that those who publish and promote vile racist online abuse need to be faced down and sanctioned. Can the Prime Minister tell us what sanctions he thinks would be appropriate for someone who publishes racist context—it is shocking even to have to say this out loud—describing Africans as “flag-waving piccaninnies” with “watermelon smiles”?
The Prime Minister
I have commented many times about the words that I have said in the past, and I think the House understands how we can take things out of context. [Interruption.] I do think people understand that. What they also understand is that there is a chance now to hold these internet companies to account and to make sure that they face fines running to 10% of their global income if they fail to take hate and racism off their platforms. I hope that the Scottish nationalist party will support that.
Ian Blackford
There is still no contrition, still no apology. The truth is that the Tory party does not sanction those who publish that kind of racist content; it promotes them to be Prime Minister. The legacy of this Prime Minister’s dog whistling has followed him into No.10 Downing Street and it is now at the heart of this Tory Government. As the England international Tyrone Mings has so powerfully stated, this Government
“don’t get to stoke the fire…and then pretend to be disgusted”
when it happens. They do not get to condemn the racism of others, but deny the racism that they have even provoked. In March, this UK Government’s own report on racism, the Sewell report, said that there was no “systemic problem” in the UK. I think the England men’s football team would beg to differ.
After the shocking racism on show over the past week, does the Prime Minister still stand by his Government’s belief that systemic racism is not a problem that exists in the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
I do think that racism is a problem in the United Kingdom, and I believe that it needs to be tackled and stamped out with some of the means that I have described this morning. When he attacks my party, I am afraid that he has the wrong target. This is a party that has not only had the first ever Muslim Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—and he is the former Chancellor, of course—but two female Prime Ministers. It has the most diverse Cabinet in the history of this country. It has the most diverse Government in the history of this country. If you are a young person growing up in a black or ethnic minority group in this country, we are the party that represents hope and opportunity. That is the reality about the Conservative party today.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, who knows a lot about the subject that she mentions. This is a fantastic opportunity for this country, because we do indeed produce a great many tech breakthroughs and we are very much looking at how to scale up fast, but we must not forget that, as I speak, there are three countries in the world that have scaled up tech breakthroughs to 100 unicorns worth more than a £1 billion. Only three countries have 100 unicorns. They are the United States of America, China and the United Kingdom.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd.
For more than seven years, Plaid Cymru has been calling for the gargantuan HS2 railway to be treated as an England-only project, so that Wales gets our fair share. Not a single inch of track will be in Wales, but we are footing the bill. Today the Welsh Affairs Committee backed our call, calling the UK Government’s categorisation of HS2 in relation to Wales “unfair and biased”. Will the Prime Minister today right this wrong, respect the Welsh Affairs Committee and ensure that Wales, like Scotland, receives our fair share from HS2?
The Prime Minister
I normally have a great deal of respect and interest in what the right hon. Lady says, but in this case she has missed what the Government are doing for transport connectivity in Wales and to Wales—something about which I know she is as passionate as I am. Look at what we are doing in the Union connectivity review with the A55, the north Wales railway corridor into Liverpool and the M4. Never let it be forgotten that it was the Welsh Labour Government—not the right hon. Lady’s fault, of course, because she is Plaid—who spent £144 million on a study and then did not even do the diversion.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the victims on Alderney. We must never forget those on the Channel Islands who suffered under occupation between 1940 and 1945. I am told that the documents in question have been transferred to the National Archives, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman seems to want us to relax our rules on self-isolation that are protecting people from coronavirus. I do not think that is the right thing to do at this time. He also calls for us to go against the JCVI. The point he raises is a matter for the JCVI.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes. I know how much my right hon. Friend cares about this matter. This is not only one of the reasons why we are rolling out our massive plan for jobs, but why I am proud that under this Government we have increased the national living wage by a record amount, to £8.91 per hour.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
The treatment of the postmasters and sub-postmasters in the recent computer malfunction was, I am afraid, appalling, and I have made that clear. When it comes to protecting and supporting post offices, particularly rural post offices, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman was driving at, this Government will do everything they can to protect them.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. I know the stretch of road that she refers to very well, as I am sure many Members across this House do. I will not be able to click my fingers and say that we can tunnel under Guildford; all I can say, in all candour, is that we will certainly look at it. But hon. Members should be in no doubt that we are spending record sums—£27 billion on improving England’s strategic roads following £640 billion for the biggest, best-ever package of infrastructure investment in this country.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course. I think that people should stick to the rules and the guidance wherever they are, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about a cautious and measured approach.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Prime Minister will have seen that two recently published Government-commissioned reports, mine on competition policy and that of the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform, both make the same two recommendations to inject fresh energy into our better regulation regime so that we can deliver our Brexit ambition of replacing ponderous EU regulations with simpler, digital and less burdensome UK equivalents without reducing quality standards in the process. Will he take this opportunity to unleash a big post-Brexit better regulation dividend by declaring his enthusiastic support for a strong new one-in-two-out regime with no loopholes or exceptions, right here today?
The Prime Minister
Yes. It is obvious that the UK has a massive amount to gain not just from my hon. Friend’s report, which I much enjoyed, as I told him—I thought it was excellent—but from the bigger report from the taskforce on reducing regulation. I thank them for that, and he and the taskforce will be seeing a lot more in the next few weeks.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I think the people of this entire country should be immensely proud of what the UK is doing abroad, whether it is educating millions of girls, with an increase in support for female education, helping countries around the world to tackle climate change with £11.6 billion of investment, or helping refugees in Yemen, Syria or Ethiopia with £900 million. We are spending £10 billion a year on overseas aid alone, to say nothing of what we are doing with vaccines. The whole country should be immensely proud of what the UK is doing in spite of this pandemic.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) [V]
Mr Speaker, I am sure you will know the Green Man festival, an incredibly popular international music event which takes place in Crickhowell in my constituency. The festival organisers have gone to great lengths to ensure that the event is covid-secure, but the Welsh Government refuse to give them the green light to go ahead as a test event, unlike similar events in England. So will my right hon. Friend help us by giving the Green Man festival his full support, and encourage the Welsh Government to get behind the festival at long last?
The Prime Minister
Well, I have not been invited to attend the Green Man festival, but it sounds great. My hon. Friend is obviously a big fan. I will do what I can to pass her message along. I thank her for campaigning for Wales and for the Green Man festival.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My message—I am sorry, obviously, for the condition that Jacqui suffers, and I think that the Labour party obviously needs to work out whether it is in favour of going ahead with step 4 or not, because that is not at all clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said, or what the Leader of the Opposition has said. They do not have a clue. But what I can say to the hon. Gentleman, and to Jacqui, is that we expect and recommend everybody to wear a face covering in a confined space where they are meeting people they do not normally meet, and that is quite right.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Last week I met with the Reading Agency, which is about to launch its annual summer reading challenge and hopes to reach 1 million primary school children this year. What a great excuse to go to one of our brilliant libraries and take part in the big covid education catch-up. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging every child across the nation to take part in the summer reading challenge? Pick up a book and read back better!
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. She is quite right; there could not be a better campaign for the summer. We have put £1.9 million of support into the reading scheme that she mentions. But of course there is £200 million going into the holiday activities fund, and there could not be a better, more useful, happier way of occupying your time on holiday than reading a good book.
Mr Speaker
Can I just gently say to all leaders that in the end I have had to cut off quite a few Back Benchers because of the amount of time that has been taken up at the beginning? Can we think about those as well? It is so important that they get their questions heard.
Mr Speaker
There will be no points of order now. I am now suspending the House for a few minutes, to enable the necessary arrangements for the next item of business to be made.
Santander Bath Road branch
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Feltham and Heston to call on Santander to stop the closure of the bank branch on Bath Road in Hounslow West.
The petitioners declare that it is crucial to save this vital, valued branch, which has two cashpoints, helps to boost our local economy and provides vital banking services for thousands of local residents, many of whom are older people without access to online banking. Residents use the branch frequently and have valued the service from Santander for many years.
This petition, along with the corresponding online petition, has collected more than 400 signatures and been supported by local councillors, particularly Councillor Bandna Chopra, Councillor Jagdish Sharma and Councillor Sumra, and colleagues and residents from across Hounslow West, Heston and Cranford.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ask that Santander does not close the Bath Road branch.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Feltham and Heston,
Declares that the Santander branch on Hounslow Bath Road should not be closed; further that access to in-person banking services is crucial to many residents in the local area; and further that residents feel that they will not have access to a comparable banking service over the phone or online and will struggle financially as a result.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ask that Santander does not close the Bath Road branch.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002675]
Sandbach Cemetery
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Sandbach in my constituency. It asks for provision for the existing Sandbach cemetery to be extended.
I have met a number of local people who are very concerned that in a short time Sandbach residents will no longer have access to cemetery space in their own town and will have to travel some miles out of the town for burials and to visit relatives’ gravesides, unless an extension or alternative cemetery provision in the town is not secured.
A petition with similar wording that has been circulated by volunteer campaigners in Sandbach has been signed by more than 4,400 people—a very substantial number for a town the size of Sandbach. I hope that my presentation of this petition in the House today will serve to highlight the extent of the concerns deeply held by local residents and constituents more widely.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Sandbach cemetery is nearly full so future burials would take place several miles out of town; notes that a local petition calling for an extension to the cemetery land has received over 4,400 signatures.
The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to request Cheshire East Council to reconsider their decision not to extend burial provision in Sandbach.
And the petitioners remain etc.
[P002676]
Rhyl Cut and Prestatyn Gutter
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Vale of Clwyd regarding maintenance of the Rhyl Cut and Prestatyn Gutter, alongside an online petition on the same topic that has been signed by 606 people.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of the Vale of Clwyd,
Declares that the maintenance of the Rhyl Cut and Prestatyn Gutter should be the responsibility of Natural Resources Wales, Denbighshire County Council and connected public sector bodies; further that existing riparian ownership should not prevent the creation of an effective system of oversight; and further that the current ineffective management of this local waterway results in significant environmental blight.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure that a full public sector maintenance programme is introduced to manage the Rhyl Cut and Prestatyn Gutter.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002677]
Racist Abuse on Social Media
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the prevalence of racist abuse on social media.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I will take a moment to reflect on the extraordinary success of the England football team in this tournament, knowing as we do the background to the urgent question. That team played their hearts out for us, and they won through to their first international final for 55 years. They did so with enormous skill, with sportsmanship and with dignity. They brought our country together and they united us in joy. It is therefore a great shame that the success and achievements of every member of that team have been overshadowed by the racism of online trolls.
In Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister just reinforced our collective condemnation of racism online and offline. Individuals who commit racist offences should face the full force of law, and we already have robust legislation in place to deal with online hate. Governments around the world are grappling with how we collectively tame the wild west of the internet. We are leading the world in tackling online harms through the introduction of the online safety Bill, which will put in place measures to tackle illegal and legal but harmful abuse, including racist abuse.
If major platforms do not meet their own standards to keep people safe and address abuse quickly and effectively, they could face enforcement action. Let one message ring loud and clear to those companies: there is no reason for companies to wait until the regime is fully running to take action against this abhorrent abuse. Indeed, I suspect that such delays will serve to stiffen the resolve of the Government and of this House.
In addition, we have asked the Law Commission to conduct a wide-ranging review into hate crime, including offensive online communications. Let us put that in context: in 2019-20, the police recorded more than 76,000 race hate crimes. Increases in police-recorded hate crime in recent years have been driven by improvements in crime recording and better identification of what constitutes a hate crime. Although statistics can help us track trends, we must always remember that behind the numbers are real people who are often left traumatised and shaken by their experiences. There is nothing so damaging and corrosive as the impact that racism has both on victims and on our communities more widely.
I would like to conclude this statement with the words of our England manager Gareth Southgate:
“We have been a beacon of light in bringing people together…the national team stands for everybody and so that togetherness has to continue. We have shown the power our country has when it does come together”.
Let us all live up to those words.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful for that response, but the reaction of the Government has lacked urgency and completely failed to understand the scale of the revulsion that exists as a result of the events of recent days. The England men’s football players have been a credit to the country on and off the pitch. When they took the knee to stand against racism, that was not gesture politics. They spoke courageously to a desire for change across our country. The failure of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to condemn those who were booing the team while they took the knee was shameful, and frankly makes their later protestations of support for the team no more than empty words. The Home Secretary has not even bothered to turn up to answer this urgent question today.
The racist abuse to which Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka have been subjected is disgraceful. Such behaviour has been too common on social media for too long. Social media platforms have had more than long enough to act. The Home Secretary said to me on Monday that “legislation will be absolutely pivotal”, but the Government have dragged their feet bringing the online harms Bill forward. Worse still, the Bill as proposed will not address what we have seen in the past couple of days—allowing social media companies to set their own terms and conditions will not be enough.
Will the Government therefore commit to including criminal sanctions for senior executives in the Bill? In addition, will the Minister tell us exactly when the Government will be acceding to the demand from Opposition Members to extend football banning orders to offences that take place online, as was promised by the Prime Minister in Prime Minister’s questions?
Finally, will the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary finally show some leadership, and apologise for siding with those who are booing and not with the brave England players?
Victoria Atkins
If I may, I will just explain to the House where the Home Secretary is today. She is at this very moment hosting a long-standing meeting with charities on the frontline of tackling violence against women and girls and with the survivors of those crimes, so I hope the House will instead put up with me answering this urgent question. However, I know that the Home Secretary would reject many, indeed all, of the allegations that the right hon. Gentleman has just made about her conduct. She has been relentless—relentless —in pursuing social media companies to ensure that they take much tougher stances, as we all expect, not just on racism online, but on child sex exploitation, terrorism and other offences. So I do not accept his accusations across the Dispatch Box.
On the online safety Bill, this is a landmark piece of legislation. The Government have been very careful to ensure that the Bill receives the scrutiny of the House, and that is why we are taking the confident step, I would say, of opening up the draft Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny. We do not do that for every Bill, but we want to get this Bill right. The House will remember that we did exactly the same with the Domestic Abuse Bill, and the Bill was made all the better for it. I am delighted that Labour has now, I understand, provided the names of its Committee members, so that the pre-legislative scrutiny can take place at pace. However, I underline the message that this House, but also the public, are watching the behaviours of online companies very carefully, and any company would be very wise to set out what it plans to do in relation to meeting the expectations of this place and of the public when it comes to conducting their systems in a way that is clear and that prevents the sorts of abuse we have seen this weekend.
On football banning orders, again the right hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Prime Minister said very clearly at PMQs about the work the Government are conducting in relation to football banning orders. It is complex because we know, for example, that some of the trolls who have targeted some members of the team over the weekend are overseas, but we very much want to work with football clubs and others to ensure that these orders have the powers that we all want them to have. As I have said throughout—and this is the golden thread that runs throughout our work on tackling online crimes—what is illegal offline is illegal online, and that is the principle we will be adopting throughout the online safety Bill.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement and for calling out some of the vile racist abuse that our brilliant players have had to face. On Sunday night, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate identified and reported 105 Instagram accounts that racially abused members of the England football team. As of this morning, only six of them have been taken down, so while we are getting warm words from some of these social media companies, that appears to be all we are getting from them at present. Can my hon. Friend therefore confirm that the online safety Bill will be brought forward with speed, and that those who post this abuse online will be held to proper account?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend highlights some of the very practical responses that social media companies can take right now; they do not need to wait for the online safety Bill. I read with some dismay and anger a report in the i paper today about how Instagram had applied its own rules—community rules—in relation to offensive emojis and indeed highly offensive words that were sent to players, but the social media companies themselves have to explain how exactly their community rules accord with the expectations and indeed the law of our country. May I, however, just make the point again that we are not alone in this? This is a challenge facing every democratic society in the world, and it is by working together, as we are doing with our voluntary principles on tackling terrorism and child sexual exploitation, that we are going to be able to make real progress against these companies and against this hatred.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
The disgusting online racism faced by England players is unfortunately overshadowing a fantastic tournament and a fantastic performance by an England team that has lately attracted admiration and perhaps even a little bit of envy.
Yes, we urgently need stronger online regulation. Content must be taken down faster, and platforms must no longer be allowed to support racist content through shamefully lax rules. We also need a debate on how we identify and punish those peddling this hate. Does the Minister agree that social media regulation is not a silver bullet, that online racism reflects offline racism, and that the Government need to take tackling racism, including structural and institutional racism, more seriously?
Whatever our disagreements, no one could say that the previous Prime Minister did not take tackling racism incredibly seriously. Why do we struggle to say the same about the current Prime Minister? Is it not because on his watch too many in his party have spent more time downplaying racism than tackling it, and more time ridiculing anti-racism campaigners than going after those who actually peddle racism? So yes, we will support action to clamp down on online platforms, but will the Minister support a change of attitude in her party?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I can assure him that had Scotland reached the same dizzy heights as England, I would have been cheering them on with great passion and strength of feeling, so I am pleased that he was able to concede some support for the England team.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s wider question about racism and hate speech across society, he is right to acknowledge that this is a matter for us all to tackle. As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, he will be aware of the work that the Government are doing to tackle hate speech and hate crimes. Of course, “hate crimes” is a very broad term: it includes not only racism but hatred towards disabled people, hatred towards transgender people, and so on. That is why we have asked the Law Commission to look at online crimes to ensure that the position is up to date and meets our expectations.
However, there is a wider message on racism more generally. I have been overwhelmed by the public’s response to those trolls over the weekend—by, for example, the way they responded to what happened to the mural in Withington: how angry they were that some individual had defaced it, and how positive their reaction has been. I think that that is what we need to reflect on and act on. Indeed, that is why I quoted our team’s manager. I think he has summed up where the public are and where we are on this, and I think it is by working together that we will tackle some of these hateful attitudes.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I know that the Home Secretary herself has been at the receiving end of terrible racist abuse. Does the Minister agree that fighting racism online and in any other form is a priority for her and for the Government? Does she also agree that that fight will be most effective when racism and anti-racism campaigns are fully understood by everyone, and that what really matters is meaningful action to tackle the scourge of racism?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. The Home Secretary has been targeted,, along with other Members on both sides of the House, and it seems that, sadly, women in particular—women of colour—are targeted by online trolls.
There are many, many people in our society who have to deal with this racism, not just online but, I am afraid, offline. I think that part of our national conversation should be about how each of us can show our complete support for the campaigns to combat racism, and how we can all ensure that we are doing everything we can, both individually and as a country, to tackle racist behaviour. I know that the Home Secretary feels very strongly about this, and indeed she has been particularly strong in her communications with tech companies throughout the two years for which she has been in office; but I also know that this is a feeling shared by many in the House, and, as I say, I am very conscious that there are others in this place who are victims as well.
Mr Speaker
Let us now go to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Yvette Cooper.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
On the Instagram profiles of England heroes this lunch time, there are still racist posts, including blatantly racist words and emojis, that have been up for more than 24 hours. I have challenged Instagram on this from the Home Affairs Committee repeatedly over the last few days. It told me this morning that using some of those emojis as racist slurs is against its rules, yet inexplicably, they are still up, and it is still taking Instagram days to remove these posts. Speed matters.
Can the Minister tell me what the Online Safety Bill is actually going to do to take action on this speed issue and to penalise companies for not moving fast enough? At the moment it looks as though that action will not happen. That is unacceptable. Keyboard cowards are being given a megaphone by these social media companies, and it has to stop.
Victoria Atkins
I completely agree with the right hon. Lady, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I do not think these tech companies quite understand the anger and frustration of everyone involved in trying to scrutinise and hold them to account when they come back at us with, “It doesn’t meet our community rules.” Words such as the words I suspect she is thinking about, the emojis, the language—that is unacceptable in any civilised society, and that includes online fora as well as offline. The Bill is a real opportunity for the Government to lay the law down but also, as I say, for parliamentarians across the House to make their views known. I have long urged the companies to listen carefully to Members of Parliament, and I would urge them again to do so, because if they do not listen, we will act.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
As someone who represents one of the most diverse constituencies in the entire country, may I put on the record how abhorrent racism is, in any form? Does my hon. Friend agree that many of these online trolls hide behind the cloak of anonymity? Can she confirm that the police can still prosecute anonymous postings, and will she consider whether we should outlaw such online posting? I think that people would take more personal responsibility if it were in their own name.
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend alights upon a very important point, but also one that will require the scrutiny and debate of this House. While we know that many, many cowards hide behind anonymous accounts, there are people who use their anonymity legitimately—victims of domestic abuse, for example, and indeed whistleblowers in very restrictive regimes overseas. I know that this place, when we come to scrutinise the Bill, will weigh those arguments up very carefully, but again, I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend’s viewpoint that if people are able to hide behind these accounts anonymously, of course that makes it much more difficult for the police to trace them. Again, we need to think through collectively where we are prepared to draw the boundaries in the wild west of the internet.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Minister gave the usual Tory platitudes. Yes, she condemned the horrific racism our England stars have faced, but what did she think about the Prime Minister when he was describing black people as “piccaninnies” with “watermelon smiles”, when he used newspaper columns to mock Muslim women as “letterboxes” and “bank robbers”, when he refused to condemn the booing of England players taking the knee, and when his Home Secretary derided that anti-racist message as “gesture politics”? Is it not the case, like England star Tyrone Mings has said, that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister were stoking the fire of racism and giving the green light to racism, and only now, when the consequences are clear, are they feigning outrage?
Victoria Atkins
I had hoped that we would be able to conduct this debate in a measured and collective way. I do not genuinely think the hon. Lady is accusing either the Prime Minister of this country or, indeed, the Home Secretary of racism. That would be a truly extraordinary allegation to make. I hope that, at some point, we will be able to work together to tackle racism. That is what we all want to do. That is what the work of this Government is directed towards. I hope that we can lower the tone a little bit and understand that in—[Interruption.] Again, the hon. Lady is trying to shout at me. In tackling these horrific instances of racism, we need to work collectively together, and shouting at me across the Dispatch Box is not going to help with that.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
Does my hon. Friend agree that the incidents of racism on social media over the past few days show why the approach taken in the draft Online Safety Bill is right? We need an independent regulator that will hold companies to account. Those companies have failed to take down this abuse, even though it is against their platform policies, and they have failed to take it down when people have complained about it. Worse than that, their own recommendation tools were actually promoting the content on Sunday night. This has to stop, but it will only stop once there is independent regulation of these companies.
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in describing that Bill as necessary and required. I think that in 10 or 15 years’ time we will look back on this era of the internet, and with the regulations we will be in a much better place in terms of people accessing social media in a positive, healthy way, rather than having to put up with the hatred we have seen in some quarters. In the Bill, as part of imposing that duty of care, we propose fines for the companies concerned of up to £18 million or—importantly—up to 10% of qualifying annual turnover. I suspect that the second figure may be the one that helps to concentrate minds.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
Is not the issue that the Government have refused to take any action towards ending social media discrimination of any kind? That, in turn, has fanned the flames of divisiveness and hate in our communities that we are currently witnessing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) pointed out. The Amnesty International report on “Toxic Twitter” pointed out that black women are 84% more likely to experience racist abuse online than anyone else. What real steps will the Minister take, urgently, to ensure that no one—and I mean absolutely no one—is able to post racist abuse online?
Victoria Atkins
I suspect I am not the only person who feels a little astonished that it is this right hon. Member who chose to ask that question about taking immediate action to tackle racism. I remind the House of the findings of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission under his watch—Labour has
“unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish.”
I am also reminded that a Jewish female MP had to have police protection at the right hon. Gentleman’s party conference, because of fears for her own safety. I will listen to many people about tackling racism and I will work with pretty much anyone, but I will take a long spoon with which to sup with this particular Member.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
It is popular to blame mutant algorithms for many things, but social media giants could use them quickly and effectively to shut down accounts that are spouting racist bile. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government are prepared to take action against platforms such as Instagram, which have been painfully slow to respond to the horrific racist abuse targeted at black players since Sunday?
Victoria Atkins
My right hon. Friend alights on an important point. This power is already within the reach of internet companies. Those companies seem to think that their community rules somehow take precedence over the laws of our country, and I imagine that is the same across other countries in the world. The message to those tech companies is this: please listen to the public’s outrage at some of the posts festering on your platforms, and deal with them. It is simply not acceptable to expect players, or victims of such abuse, to deal with it themselves. The tech companies have the algorithms and no doubt the powers to intervene, and they should use them now.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]
My question is a similar one. The racist abuse targeted at black footballers has been absolutely abhorrent. The tech giants could have stopped it, but they chose not to because it suits their business model. In October 2020, Mark Zuckerberg decided, literally on a whim, to remove holocaust denial from his Facebook, and he did that. In February 2021, after a public outcry, Instagram made a U-turn, changed its policy and started to regulate some direct messages of racial abuse.
Does the Minister agree that it is not the powers or the capability of the tech giants that is lacking, but the will? Everybody knew that the Wembley final could result in a torrent of abuse, yet the online platforms chose not to plan, not to monitor and not to act. Does she further agree that if we are to turn empty rhetoric into action, it is not enough to fine the companies, but the Government must legislate to hold the senior executives to personal account? They should be personally liable for failing to remove harmful content from their platforms.
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady and mindful of her own experiences with abuse, online and offline. I agree that of course these powers exist already, so one can only conclude that in the cases highlighted in this Chamber and in newspapers, the businesses concerned do not wish to remove those items; I have no doubt that if I am wrong, they will correct me.
There must be a will there. I very much hope that a former Member of this House—one Sir Nick Clegg, who, as we know, advises Facebook at a very senior level in California—is advising Facebook as to the powers of this place and the anger that Members across the Chamber feel. It seems to me that responding to these concerns makes not just good moral sense, but good business sense.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The abuse that we saw after England’s heroic final Euro game is beyond disgusting and has no place in any world, let alone the modern world. I know that my hon. Friend will agree that it is not beyond the ingenuity of social media platforms to deploy their vast coding expertise to develop artificial intelligence and algorithmic solutions to rapidly remove disgusting, abusive racist posts while still being able to protect appropriate freedom of speech. Sadly, there is more than enough training data for them to use.
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. My challenge to these tech companies is, “Look: you have some of the brightest brains in the world. You recruit from the top universities. You pay—I imagine—handsomely. Use those brilliant brains to do some good and to stop this abuse on your platforms.”
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The whole England team have been remarkable in opposing racism and championing justice and equality for all. Sadly, they have not had the full support of this Government. It is up to all of us with a public platform, including the Home Secretary, to personally confront racism in all its forms and give our full support to those who are working against it. The Home Secretary is not here today, so I cannot ask her personally, but will the Minister add her support to the petition to ban racists for life from all football matches in England, which now has more than 1 million signatories?
Victoria Atkins
I do not know whether the hon. Lady was in the Chamber at the beginning of this urgent question when I explained that the Home Secretary is hosting a meeting—a long-standing meeting—with charities that work with survivors of violence against women and girls. I hope that the House will understand.
On the hon. Lady’s general allegations, I am minded to point out that the Home Secretary herself receives extraordinary levels of online hatred. Some of the things that she—and, in fairness, others across this House—have to deal with are eye-watering. I urge hon. Members to join together with us in tackling this racism.
On the petition, the hon. Lady may have missed the Prime Minister’s answer at Prime Minister’s questions. We are going even better than the petition, because we are looking urgently at football banning orders to ensure that people who express these racist views are stopped from going to our matches entirely.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
I believe this great and united nation is one of the most tolerant and anti-discrimination nations I know, and that what we have witnessed is orchestrated hate crime by the minority and trolls. Does the Minister agree that we need tougher punishments for racially driven violence, intimidation and abuse on social media? The biggest issue I see is with the social media companies, which have been very slow to remove abuse from their platforms.
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend has worked assiduously not just on online hatred directed on racist grounds, but on other categories of people affected on social media, including women. I hope she will work tirelessly with the Government on our forthcoming Online Safety Bill to ensure not only that these companies do what they should do and clear out their own backyard, but that we work together to tackle the horrific attitudes that underline this abuse.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
Minister, we live in an era when online abuse is becoming normalised. The disgusting comments directed at our footballers on social media have in many cases been illegal, and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. But in other cases the abuse has been technically legal, yet remains extremely harmful and distressing. Warm words and veiled threats are clearly not enough. Will she therefore commit today to ensuring that legal but harmful content will be adequately addressed in the Online Safety Bill, to improving the Bill to ensure that social media companies’ terms and conditions meet a minimum standard, and to ensuring that those standards are enforced so that harmful content is swiftly removed from their platforms?
Victoria Atkins
Yes, I am very happy to confirm that of course we are looking at legal but harmful material. Let me draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Online Safety Bill is a really significant piece of legislation but there will be other vehicles for legislating on these sorts of crimes, including not only the victims Bill but the Law Commission’s work on online hate law more generally. It is really important that we get this right. The law has probably struggled to keep up to date with some of these developing advances in technology and we have to make sure it is future-proofed to cover these terrible crimes.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) [V]
Since Sunday’s final, everyone I have spoken to in my constituency, everywhere I have been, has expressed nothing but pride in our England team. Racist abuse online has inspired an outpouring of support and solidary. By contrast, figures released by Twitter in 2020 show that the company responded to less than 50% of all requests for information from law enforcement in the UK. Alongside support for campaigns such as Kick It Out, does my hon. Friend agree that such social media platforms must seriously raise their game or face serious repercussions?
Victoria Atkins
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am delighted to hear that the football team have received such support in her constituency—I suspect that that is the experience of us all. The racist attitudes that have been displayed by a small number of people and trolls, some of which we know originate from overseas, are very much in the minority. The overwhelming majority of us are incredibly proud of our great team.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my position as co-chair of the all-party group on showing racism the red card. Show Racism the Red Card does fantastic work in tackling racist abuse, online and elsewhere, but the Home Office, in its wisdom, cut its funding to zero 18 months ago. Show Racism the Red Card still gets funding from the Scottish and Welsh Governments, so will the Minister meet me, parliamentary colleagues and Show Racism the Red Card so that we can discuss its funding, to help to tackle this scourge in our society?
Victoria Atkins
I am very happy to do that. I should point out that a huge programme of work continues, including the online crime hub run by the police, which we help to fund. Campaigns that help to tackle racism are clearly in our country’s interests, so I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those issues further.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Sunday night should have been a celebration of achievement. Instead, we woke up the next morning with racism aimed at three men simply doing their job. That is not acceptable. We know that social media is at the centre of the storm and has a growing influence across our lives, from bullying and racism to my interest, which is in body image. Does my hon. Friend agree that social media campaigns and companies have a duty and responsibility to work proactively with Government and the police to better our society?
Victoria Atkins
I most certainly do agree. In fairness, as the House would expect, I should say that we do a lot of work with online companies across a great range of subjects. Indeed, only yesterday I met business leaders, including tech leaders, to discuss how we can create opportunities for our hardest-to-reach young people who are at risk of serious violence. I am grateful to them for those activities, but the message is coming out loud and clear not just in this country but across the world that somehow we must tame the wild west of the internet so that these more hateful practices are not dominating our national headlines and taking away from the great achievements of our England team.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Racist abuse online is not just abhorrent; it normalises racist views offline and desensitises people to them. The true spirit of Greater Manchester is in the scenes that the Minister mentioned of the community placing messages of support and love on the defaced Marcus Rashford mural, not the graffiti of some pea-brained moron. As a Man City fan, I say that United’s Rashford is among the best of us. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to extending football banning orders to cover online abuse, for which Labour has been calling for some time. Given the urgency, when and how will that happen?
Victoria Atkins
I do not have a timeframe to hand, but I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman on that. May I thank him, as a Man City fan and a Member of Parliament for one of the greatest cities on the planet, for highlighting the great humour and support that the people of Withington have shown?
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
We all know that social media companies have the tools and powers to prevent online hate, yet it is still happening day in, day out. The incidents following Sunday evening have shone a light on this disgusting abuse. If social media companies will not act on their own, what actions will the Government take to ensure that finally we put a full stop to online hate?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend has identified the opportunity for the Government, and indeed the House, in the Online Safety Bill. The powers-that-be in the tech companies are no doubt watching the debate closely, and I assume they have got the message loud and clear from all parts of the House about our expectations on their next moves.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House this afternoon. Racist incidents online do not exist in a vacuum; they exist in a world where, according to the YMCA, 95% of young black British children have witnessed racism in education. They exist in a world where, according to the Runnymede Trust, racism in the UK is systematic in our health system, in the criminal justice system, in employment and even in politics, which I know all too well. I want every young black and minority ethnic person watching today to know that they have a place in this society and they can reach the height that I did from a council estate in Brixton. I will continue to do my bit to ensure that we speak out against racism.
This racism also exists in a world where so-called spectators even want to boo their own team—disgraceful! Social media companies need to take a lot more action, but, until they feel the full weight of the law, they will not understand that. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will introduce criminal sanctions against social media executives in the Online Harms Bill?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments; she spoke with such passion, and she is right. Every time she and other Members of this House stand up to speak on behalf of their constituents, they are role models. I am delighted that this House is more diverse than it has ever been, although it needs to be even more diverse. I am also very proud of the fact that the Government are more diverse than they have ever been. The fact that two of the great offices of state are filled by people who happen to be of ethnic minority heritage is a real credit to our country and to how one can achieve what one wants with hard work and effort.
On the hon. Lady’s question relating to executives, that is something we are looking at in the Bill. There are measures in it that have been set out to deal with executives. Of course, I welcome her and any other Members’ input to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the Bill is meeting the expectations of all.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Some of these vile abusers are totally open, but the cloak of anonymity does embolden others. It also opens the door for hostile actors, with the divisive exploitation that can sometimes follow. As the Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), anonymity is important in some contexts, including, for example, for survivors of domestic abuse, but it does not follow that it is therefore required in all contexts. If someone is communicating online in their own identity, should they not be able to say that they want to hear from and be commented on only by other people who are using their own identity? Will the Government please look at that again in the Online Safety Bill?
Victoria Atkins
That is an extremely interesting point, and I promise I will look into it.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Like thousands of other Welsh fans, I stand with Marcus Rashford and others, including many Welsh players, against the vile racist abuse they have received. Tory Home Secretaries have wasted years through their inaction on this issue. In 2016, I introduced my Criminal Offences (Misuse of Digital Technologies and Services) (Consolidation) Bill, which included tackling racist abuse online, to make the current fragmented law workable in the 21st century. Five years on, we are still waiting for action. I have a specific question: will the Online Safety Bill provide clarity on what constitutes illegal racist hate speech against groups of people as well as offences against individuals?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady knows that we have asked the Law Commission to look into the laws relating to malicious online communications. I declare my interest as a former prosecuting counsel. This is a horribly complex area of law, and as technology develops with, for example, deep fake images and so on, it becomes more complex. That is precisely why we asked the Law Commission to look into it. In terms of the hon. Lady’s other challenges, the Bill is going to be scrutinised at length by the House, so she will no doubt have the opportunity put her views forward. I want to get the message out that the Online Safety Bill needs to be considered carefully, because we very much want it to be a piece of legislation that stands the test of time. I cannot really think of another country in the world that has entered into such an ambitious project to try to bring some of these corners of the internet into the light so that we do not see these sorts of practices online.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Much of the online racist abuse against England’s footballers is thought to have originated from overseas social media accounts. What steps are she and her Department taking with counterparts in other countries to ensure that there is a concerted international effort to stamp out these appalling attacks so that there is no hiding place?
Victoria Atkins
I think my hon. Friend is referring to the early analysis by the Premier League. I hope he will be reassured by the fact that we are looking into this with some urgency. Given that it is a global football competition, it is perhaps no leap of the imagination to suppose that some of this abuse may have come from overseas, and we want to look at that carefully. This also underlines the point that the internet is available across the world and that we have to act collectively with other nation states in order to bring these trolls to heel. We are already doing that through the Five Eyes and through the voluntary principles that we have won agreement on in relation to child sexual exploitation and tackling terrorism.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) [V]
I join the Minister and others in their congratulations and tributes to the England football team, and in their condemnation of the abuse suffered by the three black players. In a couple of months’ time, David, in the form of Northern Ireland, will take on Goliath, in the form of Italy, in World cup qualifying. We will endeavour to build on the national pride and endeavour we have seen in the past few weeks.
On the online safety Bill, will the Minister reassert, as she has said several times, that if the providers do not act, they will suffer grievous financial hardship and we will hit them where it hurts, in their corporate pockets?
Victoria Atkins
I am pleased to join the hon. Gentleman’s support for Northern Ireland. I am sure Italy will pose no problem for Northern Ireland, and I wish Northern Ireland all the greatest of success.
On the serious subject of our work to tackle the online hatred we saw again this weekend, the online safety Bill is a landmark piece of legislation and I look forward to working with the House on its passage.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
Racism, racist bullying and any form of bullying is completely unacceptable, and I hope my hon. Friend uses all her powers to stamp down on such behaviour. On divisiveness in our society, it appears it has become about whether or not people take the knee. Does she agree that the single biggest cause of divisiveness is the lack of tolerance and respect from both sides of the argument, equally? It does not matter whether someone chooses to take the knee. What matters is that they have tolerance and respect for those who choose to and, equally, for those who choose not to.
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend has defined what it is to live in a free country. We abide by the principles of free speech, within the genuine and legitimate confines of legislation such as hate crime legislation. We have a wonderfully diverse football team with enormous talent and enormous skills. Just as they have acted with tolerance, respect and humility in the face of the nation’s joy and adoration, we should extend that to each other and treat each other with tolerance and respect.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
We all know that racist abuse is not confined to social media. On 3 July, The Sunday Times ran an article stating that Raheem Sterling’s success in the Euros was being celebrated on the “violent Jamaica streets” where he grew up. This sort of ignorant and tasteless commentary only feeds the stereotype that black people and black populations or countries are dangerous. Will the Minister today condemn the disgusting attitudes that have been propelled by the tabloids and broadsheets for decades? What will she do about it?
Victoria Atkins
I have not seen that report, but my memory of Raheem Sterling is the story he told of growing up in the shadow of the Wembley arch and imagining himself playing under that arch—instead of being outside the stadium, being inside the stadium. Of course, he has done exactly that.
That shows that in this country there is the opportunity and the chance, if you have the talents of Mr Sterling and others, to succeed. I very much hope that is the message that comes out of our debate both this afternoon and more generally in relation to the horrendous hate crimes we saw over the weekend.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that this should be a matter where both sides of the House and all parties come together to ensure we put an end to racist abuse once and for all? Will she highlight how, through the online safety Bill, this will actually happen?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. By working together, we are so much stronger. Today we have seen that there is great unity of intent and will across the House to ensure that those who express racist views are held to account and brought to justice, and that each part of society plays its part, including online companies.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Does the Minister think her colleagues’ refusal to condemn the booing of players for taking the knee, their dismissal of taking the knee as “gesture politics”, No. 10’s denial of institutional racism in the UK or the Government’s three-year delay to legislation that would crack down on online abuse could have given space to a culture or hostile environment that sees the racist abuse of England players as acceptable? Does the Minister regret that denial of the problem and the failure to act?
Victoria Atkins
I am going to temper the hon. Lady’s remarks with some facts. The Home Secretary did not say that she supported football fans booing England players for taking the knee. The Prime Minister was clear in saying that the public should be cheering our team, not booing them. We have to be very careful with how we handle the facts; we are presenting our plans for the future to help to eradicate racism and our plans for taming the internet, and that is how we will achieve things. A little bit of back and forth at the Dispatch Box is welcome and part of our rich tapestry of democracy, but I do hope that the hon. Lady will stick to facts next time.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I draw the Minister’s attention to the paradox identified by Sunder Katwala, the director of British Future: there are far fewer overt racists in Britain today than there were 20 or 30 years ago, which is a very good thing, and there are far fewer racist attitudes in Britain, but because of social media and the fact that everyone is always online, individuals from black and ethnic minority communities experience far more racism on a day-to-day basis than they did then. That is why fixing this needs to be a public policy priority and why people at Twitter and Facebook need to step up. They need to stop people who are banned opening new accounts, and they need to address the algorithms that promote that material, and in that way we can rebuild community cohesion.
Victoria Atkins
We all acknowledge the echo chamber that social media provides, and the fact that being available online across the world perhaps enables just a single person to have far more volume added to their voice than would be the case if they were known, as they usually are, to be sitting in their bedroom rather pathetically tapping away on their laptop or phone. We must build resilience among our young people in schools to prepare them to understand that torrents of abuse like this may represent only a tiny number of people, and very much build on education and the cultural attitudes that we are seeking to address through relationships, health and sex education in schools to ensure that people understand the principles of tolerance and kindness in being able to debate without hatred. There are many ways of tackling racism. I look forward to debating them in the months and years to come, but we do not need to take chunks out of one another while we are debating.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Secretary of State, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that there are active legal proceedings on the legality of the Northern Ireland protocol and active legal proceedings and open inquests in relation to historic troubles-related deaths. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters of sub judice to allow full reference to the challenge to the Northern Ireland protocol as it concerns issues of national importance. Further, I am exercising that discretion to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings and open inquests in relation to the historic troubles-related deaths. However, references to these cases should be limited to the context and to the events which led to the cases but not to the detail of cases themselves, nor the names of those involved in them. All hon. Members should, however, be mindful of the matters that may be the subject of future legal proceedings and should exercise caution in making reference to individual cases.
I also wish to say something further about the actions yesterday of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) in naming somebody apparently subject to an anonymity order. As Members of this House, we enjoy freedom of speech. “Erskine May” states that
“a Member may state whatever they think fit in debate”
and that
“the Member is protected by parliamentary privilege from any action for defamation, as well as from any other question or molestation. This freedom extends to statements which, if made out of Parliament, would breach injunctions, although this has been deprecated by the Speaker.”
Freedom of speech must, however, be used responsibly. It is a grave step to use privilege to breach a court order. As the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions made clear:
“privilege places a significant responsibility on parliamentarians to exercise it in the public interest. The presumption should be that court orders are respected in Parliament and that when a Member does not comply with one he or she can demonstrate that it is in the public interest.”
It is for others to judge whether the action of the hon. Member for Foyle was indeed in the public interest. However, the hon. Member broke no rules of order, as his comments were made while the House was considering the Armed Forces Bill and the sub judice rule does not apply when legislation is in question.
Finally, before I call the Secretary of State, I have to deprecate the fact that, once again, a statement appears to have been extensively briefed to the media before being made to the House. That is not acceptable. That is not the way that we want to do business. I have to say that I have had a number of texts and emails on this from Members who take a very keen interest in this and who are very supportive of this issue. They are, quite rightly, disappointed that it seems more important that newspapers are the ones to carry this, not this House.
Once again, let me say—and I say it to all Secretaries of State and all Departments—that this House must hear that statement first. It should not be briefed to the newspaper 24 hours before, so, please, look and listen. If not, it will be much more difficult, as we will grant urgent questions every day to bring that Department to this Dispatch Box. Please, let us work together and let us respect Members of this House, who are, quite rightly, very concerned and want to make sure that they are involved in the statement first. I now call the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My apologies to you and to the House. I accept the comments that you have made. I just say in my defence and in that of colleagues who have been working on this issue for the past 18 months or so that we have been having wide engagement on a range of issues that inform the statement that I am going to make. This is the first time anybody will hear or have seen this statement, apart from the advance copies that we gave to colleagues earlier as per the normal protocol, as it has always been done, not to the press. It has been important in the past few weeks and months, and will be important in the weeks ahead, to have that wide engagement with people around the issues that we are talking about, because of the complexity and sensitivity of the matter.
I would like to make a statement now about the way forward in addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past.
The troubles saw a terrible, extensive period of violence that claimed the lives of some 3,500 people, left up to 40,000 people injured, and caused untold damage to all aspects of society in Northern Ireland. The Belfast/Good Friday agreement in 1998 sought to move Northern Ireland forward, setting a bold and visionary path that would guide all the people of Northern Ireland towards a shared, stable, peaceful and prosperous future.
It is wonderful to mark, in this centenary year, just how far Northern Ireland has come. While Northern Ireland is undoubtedly today a fantastic place in which to live, work and visit, the unresolved legacy of the troubles remains. It continues to impact and permeate society in Northern Ireland. The past is a constant shadow over those who directly experienced the horrors of those times, and also over those who did not but who now live with the trauma of previous generations.
It is clear that the current system for dealing with the legacy of the troubles is not working. It is now a difficult and painful truth that the focus on criminal investigations is increasingly unlikely to deliver successful criminal justice outcomes, but all the while it continues to divide communities and it fails to obtain answers for a majority of victims and families. That is borne out in the figure. The Police Service of Northern Ireland are currently considering almost 1,200 cases, which represents just a fraction of the 3,500 deaths and wider cases. These would take over 20 years to investigate. More than two thirds of troubles-related deaths occurred over 40 years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for the courts to provide families with the answers they are seeking. If we fail to act now to address, acknowledge and account for the legacy of the troubles properly, we will be condemning current and future generations to yet further division, preventing reconciliation at both the individual and societal level.
That is why I am today laying before the House, and publishing, a paper that proposes a series of measures to address the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. These proposals are being considered as part of an ongoing and an important engagement process, which I announced alongside the Irish Government at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference last month. As set out in the framework, which we published at the same time, that engagement process is committed to involving not just the UK and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties, but those directly affected by the troubles, and experts and Members and Committees of this House and the other place. The objective of this engagement is to deal with legacy issues in a way that supports information recovery and reconciliation, complies fully with international human rights obligations and responds to the needs of individual victims and survivors, as well as society as a whole.
This is a hugely difficult and complex issue, and many have strongly held and divergent views on how to move forward, but I hope we can all agree that this is an issue that is of the utmost importance to the people of Northern Ireland and beyond. It is critical that all involved continue to engage in a spirit of collaboration in order to deliver practical solutions on this most sensitive of issues. This Government reaffirm their commitment to intensive engagement in that spirit, and we are committed to introducing legislation by the end of the autumn.
The measures set out in the paper will include three key proposals. First, a new independent body, that will focus on the recovery and provision of information about troubles-related deaths and most serious injuries. That body will be focused on helping families to find out the truth of what has happened to their loved ones. When families do not want the past raked over again, they would be able to make that clear. For those families that want to get answers, the body will have the full powers to seek access to information and find out what happened.
Secondly, a package of measures will also include a major oral history initiative, consistent with what was included in the Stormont House agreement. That initiative would create opportunities for people from all backgrounds to share their experiences and perspectives related to the troubles and, crucially, to learn about those of others. Balance and sensitivity would be of central importance and a concerted effort would be made to engage with those whose voices may not have been heard previously.
Thirdly there will be a statute of limitations, to apply equally to all troubles-related incidents. We know that the prospect of the end of criminal prosecutions will be difficult for some to accept, and this is not a position that we take lightly, but we have come to the view that it is the best and only way to facilitate an effective information retrieval and provision process, and the best way to help Northern Ireland move further along the road to reconciliation. It is a painful recognition of the very reality of where we are.
As I say, these issues are complex and they are sensitive. That is why they remain unresolved, 23 years after the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We also understand the importance of the Stormont House agreement, and remain committed to its key principles, which this paper will outline and cover. In particular, we acknowledge that any proposal that moves away from criminal justice outcomes would be a very significant step that will be extremely difficult for some families to accept.
The Belfast/Good Friday agreement was a bold step—one to address the past—and there have been other bold steps, such as the decommissioning of weapons and the limiting of sentences, all those years ago, to two years. However, it is increasingly clear to us that the ongoing retributive criminal justice processes are far from helping, and are in fact impeding the successful delivery of information recovery, mediation and reconciliation that could provide a sense of restorative justice for many more families than is currently the case.
The Government are committed to doing all in their power to ensure that families from across the United Kingdom do not continue to be let down by a process that leads only to pain, suffering and disappointment for the vast majority. As part of that, we will deliver on our commitment to veterans who served in Northern Ireland. We will provide certainty for former members of the security forces, many of whom remained fearful of the prospect of being the subject of ongoing investigations that will hang over them for years to come, even though the vast majority acted in accordance with the law, and often at great personal risk.
We are also unequivocal in our commitment to delivering for victims and survivors. Time is crucial, and as it moves on we risk the very real possibility that we will lose any chance to get the vital information that families want and need. They have waited long enough and a focus on information would offer the best chance of giving more families some sense of justice through acknowledgment, accountability and restorative means. We need to progress our understanding of the complexity of the troubles and in doing so seek to reconcile society with the past as we go on to look forward together.
This Government are determined to address all aspects of Northern Ireland’s troubled past. We know from our recent history, particularly with the implementation of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, that we can achieve more when we are bold and move forward together. I want us all to continue to engage on the shape and the detail of the proposals as we work to address this issue, which is of the utmost importance to the people of Northern Ireland and beyond.
Finally, I draw the attention of the House to a quote from Margaret Fairless Barber. I came across it when reading the report by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley into Northern Ireland’s past and I think it is worth repeating today in the House:
“To look backwards for a while is to refresh the eye, to restore it, and to render it more fit for its prime function of looking forward.”
I commend this statement to the House.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but share your frustration, Mr Speaker, that the Government have repeatedly chosen to brief newspapers rather than to respect this House, and more importantly the victims whom these proposals concern.
In debates about Northern Ireland’s past here in Great Britain, it is all too easy to forget the victims of the conflict—people such as Brian Service, who was just 35 years old when he was shot in the head by loyalist paramilitaries in a random sectarian attack just weeks before the Good Friday agreement. After his death, his mother said she felt:
“It was as if he never really existed as a person and that his life and death did not matter.”
The deep pain of that conflict was the proximity of the violence and the absence of justice. More than 3,000 people lost their lives and tens of thousands were injured—in a place of fewer than 2 million people. Society and the peace process in general remain so fragile precisely because the pain runs so deep. It is why any proposal to deal with legacy must have victims and the communities of Northern Ireland at its heart, and that requires real care from the Secretary of State. It is therefore deeply regrettable that his approach has already seen trust among victims reach rock bottom.
Victims have been treated appallingly over the last 18 months: promises made torn up; gaslighted by the Secretary of State at this Dispatch Box. It is little wonder that many have greeted today’s proposals with deep scepticism and question whether this is more an exercise in shoring up narrow party support than in delivering the reconciliation that the communities in Northern Ireland crave.
We must not forget that this Government gave victims their word. Just 18 months ago, they promised to legislate on the Stormont House agreement in New Decade, New Approach. These proposals are a seismic departure from that promise. If the goal is reconciliation, why would the Secretary of State begin by taking a sledge- hammer to promises made by his own Government? I am afraid that to dress this up as truth and reconciliation is deeply disingenuous. As they stand, these proposals will deliver neither.
We cannot impose reconciliation and the truth will never out with an amnesty in place—because at the heart of these proposals is an amnesty in all but name, which is profoundly offensive to many. No wonder the five main political parties in Northern Ireland have objected to the proposals, as have victims’ groups right across the spectrum, including South East Fermanagh Foundation, WAVE and Relatives for Justice. Crimes committed in the United Kingdom, the vast majority of which relate to republican and loyalist murder, closed for good; no justice for the Bloody Sunday families whose cases remain live; no justice for the 21 innocent people murdered by IRA bombs on a November night in Birmingham in 1974—the deadliest act of terror in Britain until 7/7. Their families have said today that such an amnesty would be abhorrent.
As veterans of the Ulster Defence Regiment I met in Cookstown told me, “We have nothing to hide. We were there to protect the rule of law. If we broke it, use it against us. If we didn’t, defend us with it.” Ministers today appear to have concluded that the rule of law no longer applies—an amnesty for the republican and loyalist terrorists who tortured, maimed, disappeared and murdered men, women and children.
Addressing the toxic legacy of the past in this way—through unilateral imposition by Westminster without the support of any political party in Northern Ireland—is foolish and unsustainable. A way forward has to be found—one done with people, not to them, which genuinely prioritises reconciliation and upholds the rule of law. It is striking that the Secretary of State made scant reference to the Government’s obligations under article 2 to conduct effective investigations. If his proposals are not legal, they will be tied up in the courts for many years to come.
The work of Operation Kenova is demonstrating that even now, many years on, important new evidence can be retrieved. The case for a comprehensive legacy process, as outlined in Stormont House, through investigations with full police powers, remains strong and compelling. It is totally wrong to abandon it.
The Secretary of State’s deliberations concern the most shattering moments; the midnight hour of some of the darkest days seen on these islands. They concern whether families for whom the violence was so intimate will have the chance to come to terms with what happened to their loved ones. I urge him to ask himself whether society’s interests are truly served by an amnesty, or whether it is his own party’s interests that he is serving.
This is the last chance for many victims to find the truth. The Secretary of State’s decision could be the last word. On this issue, more than any other, those most affected by the dark legacy of the past must come first.
Brandon Lewis
We are committed to addressing the unresolved legacy of Northern Ireland’s past so that communities can reconcile and heal. That is what the Command Paper we will publish today sets out. I suggest the hon. Lady has a look at it; she will see that some of the issues she raised are the issues we have been talking to people about and cover in that Command Paper. As I said, we are determined that anything we do is article 2 compliant.
The hon. Lady referred to Operation Kenova, which has done excellent work with victims of families to get to the bottom of the truth. In the four or five years that has been functioning, there have been no prosecutions, but there is a model in Operation Kenova about how these things can work, which gives is a clear indication of how to get to information as we move forward. That is the kind of process that it would be constructive for us to look at and deal with.
On Stormont House, it is increasingly clear—I was frank about this in my opening remarks—that any approach to dealing with the legacy of the past that focuses on criminal investigations will be unlikely to deliver the outcomes that people hope for. There comes a point when we in this House need to be honest with people about the very painful and difficult reality of where we are today, as recent cases have shown us. That is probably why the previous Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland made the comment that some of those things were simply unworkable. We are also clear that we will never accept any moral equivalence between those who upheld the law in Northern Ireland, who served their country, and those on all sides who sought to destroy it.
Let me gently say to hon. Lady that she stood there and talked about engagement, but some of the people she criticised me for not engaging with we engaged with just last week, as part of a wide range of engagement over the past 18 months that will continue. The paper is part of the tools that are ongoing and will continue in the weeks ahead.
In the light of not hearing from the hon. Lady a single thing about what the Labour party would propose as a way forward, I will finish, as I did in my opening statement, with a quote: “Instead of releasing the sort of politics that can ensure the success of the Good Friday agreement, the party is an obstacle to progressive political development.” That is a quote today from Boyd Black, the secretary of the Labour party in Northern Ireland.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
The Belfast/Good Friday agreement enabled peace to come to Northern Ireland and opened up the prospect of a much brighter future for that part of the United Kingdom, but does my right hon. Friend agree that young people today and future generations will be able to enjoy that brighter future only if Northern Ireland can find a path to reconciliation and if it is able to address—and, crucially, move on from—the legacy of the past?
Brandon Lewis
Yes. My right hon. Friend, who I know has had a great interest in Northern Ireland for many years, is absolutely right. It cannot be right that, 23 years on from the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, still only some 7% of children in Northern Ireland are able to enjoy integrated education. If we want to see society move forward, we need to be clear and honest with ourselves that there is much more work to do on that. She is absolutely right that we need to end the intergenerational trauma that we are seeing and find a way to help Northern Ireland move forward so that the next generation and today’s younger generation can look forward, while always understanding where we have come from and what has happened.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
May I associate myself with your remarks before the statement, Mr Speaker, about the unfortunate way in which this information has entered the public domain? I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but we should not be reading these things on the BBC and RTÉ websites before we can discuss them in the House.
I acknowledge the untidy and imperfect nature of some of the compromises that have had to be made over the decades, first to achieve peace in Northern Ireland and then to maintain it. However, whatever merits in principle there might be in proposals surrounding aspects of truth, reconciliation and ensuring that the hidden truths of the troubles can at last be told while it is still possible, there remain huge concerns about the apparent lack of formal consultation and engagement on them.
Does the Secretary of State understand the huge concern, unease and upset that these proposals for a statute of limitations will cause, not just across Northern Ireland, but right across these islands? Will he acknowledge that unease and commit to engaging with victims’ groups and political leaders to discuss the way forward? Will he also think again about that statute of limitations and find a way to ensure, whatever final proposals he brings forward to the House, that where independent prosecutors consider that there is a sufficiency of evidence and a likelihood of successful conviction and, importantly, where they independently judge that it is in the public interest to bring forward a prosecution, they will still be able to do so?
Brandon Lewis
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about making sure that we are able to get to the truth and get to information. Nobody in this House ever wants to see again a situation like the Ballymurphy case, where the families have had to wait 50 years to get to the truth. We have to find a better way forward. The current system is failing everybody, so to do nothing simply is not an option that will deliver for people in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
We do want to engage. We have been engaging, and not just over the past 18 months. Even last week, my officials and I engaged with victims’ groups on these very issues. In the weeks ahead, with the Command Paper for people to read through and engage with, that engagement will continue, including with the political parties and our partners in the Irish Government.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend should be commended for trying once again, as others have done, to resolve legacy. As we do so, can we resolve not to use the language—I know that he has not done so—of drawing a line and closing a chapter? For those who suffer still, that is something unreachable. We need to show the utmost sensitivity on that point.
The work of Operation Kenova has commanded cross- community support. Where do that model and approach fit into my right hon. Friend’s thinking as he tries to pursue truth and reconciliation? How will he evolve these plans, working in concert with the Irish Government, to ensure and maximise buy-in for a joint approach? Is there a George Mitchell-like figure hovering in the wings who could be deployed to help and to act as an honest broker as we try to resolve this all-too-long issue?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the comments of the Chairman of the Select Committee. There is a lot of work to do with our partners, not just victims and veterans—who of course are also often victims of the troubles themselves in a wider sense, and in some cases directly—but the parties in Northern Ireland and also the Irish Government. There are still a range of cases that I know exist, which the First Minister of Northern Ireland wrote to the Taoiseach about not that long ago. That is why we are looking at how we can work together on information recovery to ensure that we find a way that gets to the truth and to information that we have not yet been able to secure in a process that works for families and victims. I do think Operation Kenova is a very good example of showing how we can get to the truth and can get information in a format we have not had before. We need to accept the difficult reality that, over the last five years, it has not yet seen any successful prosecutions, but the model of how it has worked—worked with victims and with families—is an important part of the discussions to have about information recovery.
I share with my hon. Friend the view that this is never about ignoring what has happened. We should not do that, and it would be wrong to do that. We have to be conscious of our past to be able to understand and learn more about where we can go for our future, and that has to be the aim for people, including the young generation of people, in Northern Ireland.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I know this is a difficult issue, and the Secretary of State is not the first to attempt to address these matters. I think we all have to take responsibility for the failure since 1998 to deal effectively with this matter.
On this day, 14 July, in 1984 two of my comrades in the Ulster Defence Regiment, Private Norman McKinley and Corporal Heather Kerrigan, were murdered by the IRA in a landmine explosion near Castlederg. I think also today of even Members of this House who lost their lives during the troubles—people such as Airey Neave, murdered in the precincts of this House, for which no one has been brought to justice; and the Rev. Robert Bradford, the Member for Belfast South, murdered in his advice centre, for which no one has been brought to justice.
Like the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), I want to take the path to reconciliation, but I cannot believe that the path to reconciliation is made easier when we sacrifice justice. The victims have to be at the centre of this, and I would urge the Secretary of State, in taking forward his proposals, to listen to their voices. This must be a victim-centred process; it cannot be at their expense.
I want Northern Ireland to move forward. I want the young generation to see a Northern Ireland that is looking to the future, not living in the past, but upholding the rule of law, after all that we have been through in Northern Ireland, is important. Justice is important and, yes, truth is important as well, but I think the Secretary of State needs now to reassure the victims that they will be part of the discussion of these proposals and that their quest for justice will not be ignored.
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: victims must be a huge and important part of this process. We have been engaged with organisations such as the WAVE Trauma Centre, and I met the South East Fermanagh Foundation myself just last week. Their stories, and those of others whom I have met and talked to, are moving and in some cases, as he and many in this House will know, harrowing. He is right to talk about Members of this House, and members of my party have obviously been victims. I noticed Lord Tebbit’s powerful comments this morning about his views.
It is right that we have victims in our mind. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly outlines, we often forget that many of those who served are also victims and close to victims, which is why taking the thoughtful approach he outlines is absolutely right. It is right that there is a point at which we need to be honest with people and deal with the very painful reality of where we are and what is achievable for people. This is about acknowledging the reality of where we are with retributive justice following the sentencing Act that followed the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—and actually looking at restorative justice and reconciliation as a way forward, and at how we facilitate getting the information we need to reach accountability, truth and reconciliation. We think, after so many years of looking at this, that it is the right way forward, but I look forward to having that discussion and debate with him and with others.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
For many families who lost loved ones during the troubles, the chances of achieving a criminal justice outcome are vanishingly small, which is leading, understandably, to pain, suffering and disappointment. Despite that, however, for many of them the proposal to apply a statute of limitations will be extremely difficult to accept. So will my right hon. Friend assure me that he is working with communities on all sides to ensure that everybody’s voice is heard?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, I can absolutely give that assurance. We have been doing so over the past 18 months, and with wider civic society as well. We were certainly doing so in the intensive talks that began after the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference on 24 June. That process effectively started the week before last and will continue for the next few weeks, so we will certainly be doing that.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
In October 1990, Patsy Gillespie was abducted from his home by the IRA. His family were told he would be back soon, while being held at gunpoint. Patsy was then chained to the driver’s seat of a van filled with explosives and forced at gunpoint to drive that van to a nearby Army base. The IRA then remotely detonated the bomb, killing Patsy and five soldiers. Will the Secretary of State come with me and explain to his widow Kathleen why he wants to protect his killers from prosecution and even investigation?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman tends in this House, as we saw yesterday, to use emotive comments for soundbites, often for his own social media outlet. To use somebody’s harrowing experience and loss in that way says much about him. I would happily meet any victims to talk to them about the experience they have been through and why we need to be honest with them about what is achievable and how we help Northern Ireland to move forward in a positive way, rather than continuing to use harrowing experiences like that for political ends in the way he has done in the past 24 hours.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I particularly welcome your opening statement, Mr Speaker, about the way in which this information came out today.
Many years ago, I was called to serve in Northern Ireland. I did not ask to go and it was a terrible thought that I had to carry a rifle amongst members and citizens of the United Kingdom. I, like many others, lost a friend. Robert Nairac was captured, taken prisoner, tortured and murdered, and his body has never been found. His parents died never knowing where he was or what happened to him. The Good Friday agreement, with its associations, and also the letters of comfort that followed have meant pretty much that many of us have now accepted, sadly, that we will never really know the truth about what happened to that brave man. I simply say today that this process, which is four years in the making—I do upbraid the Secretary of State for not having brought forward legislation at least giving us an idea of what the Government are planning—will not be beloved of anybody, but I do recognise, sincerely, that if we are to move forward we will all have to make some kind of sacrifice. My only concern is that the vexatious pursuit of soldiers who served, like many of us did, because that is what their country called them to do, should end and they themselves be seen as victims.
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As he will appreciate, I know about the Robert Nairac case, which is a very good example of where we have not been able to get to information. That is why it is important to try to work with our partners, with the Irish Government and potentially the United States as well on how we can find a way forward that delivers information in a way that we have just not been able to do so far, and what allows us to step forward and do that. As I say, I think these proposals give us the basis for doing that.
My right hon. Friend also makes a very powerful point, which I absolutely accept, about legislation. He, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and others in this House have, for a very long time, made the case for needing to move this issue forward, and I absolutely accept that they want to see that delivered as quickly as possible. He makes a very strong, powerful point that I support; I alluded to it earlier and it is worth making again. Those who served their country with honour, to protect life and to protect their country, are victims as well and have just as important a voice in this as anybody else in looking at how we move things forward for the people of Northern Ireland.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
These shameful proposals are an insult to all victims and indeed to many veterans who served honourably. They do not draw a line but rather cross the line of justice and the rule of law. It is staggering that the Government are contemplating an amnesty, including for IRA and loyalist terrorists, in order to address this false narrative of vexatious investigations into veterans. There is near universal disapproval of these proposals in Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will not seek to impose these one-sided proposals over the heads of local parties in Northern Ireland and of victims’ groups across the spectrum?
Brandon Lewis
I just say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said earlier, that there is a very important difference here. This is a statute of limitations. We are not pardoning terrorists for the heinous crimes that they committed. We are very clear as a Government that we will never accept any moral equivalence between those who upheld the law and served their country and the citizens of Northern Ireland, and those on all sides who sought to destroy it. I absolutely want to find a way to work through this with people in Northern Ireland—parties, civic society, representatives of the victims groups and victims themselves—to find a way forward. I ask him to look carefully at what we are talking about and engage positively on how we are looking to deal with information recovery in a way that means we can get to the truth, and with truth comes accountability. The way in the past 23 years has failed everybody. There has to be a better way of doing this and there is a duty on all of us to find it.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
Having served on three operational tours, I have some knowledge of the Province and more about the ongoing witch hunt of our veterans. Of course, I welcome any move to try to end this injustice, but I am afraid that I do not believe that former terrorists, on both sides of the sectarian divide, will now participate in a truth recovery process, if I have understood my right hon. Friend correctly. This is not South Africa. Does he agree that it is time for the long-awaited and frequently discussed and promised Bill, not further discussions?
Brandon Lewis
As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I do recognise the desire of colleagues to see legislation and they will see legislation before the end of the autumn. I would have liked to bring legislation forward earlier, but it is important that we are working with our partners, not just the Irish Government, as I have outlined, but interested parties and political parties in Northern Ireland, to find a way forward if we can. This paper is intended to inform those discussions in the next few weeks so that we can find a mutual way forward. I recognise my hon. Friend’s point about who will and will not come forward with the information, but one challenge of the situation at the moment is that information is not coming forward. If we do not find a way of doing something different, we are, sadly, in a position where, because of time, that information will no longer be with us. We believe it is time to do something bold and different to find a way forward that can get to the truth, as far as we can, to get answers for families who have waited for far too long, as well as to help Northern Ireland to move forward.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State’s statement today is a quite remarkable achievement. I have followed Northern Ireland politics all my adult life and I can think of very few occasions when Secretaries of State in this place have been able to unite all five parties in Northern Ireland, but he today has achieved exactly that. They are, however, all united in telling him that on the question of an amnesty he is wrong. He stands at the Dispatch Box today and says that he makes no moral equivalence between those who broke the law and those who upheld it. Why then is he offering them all legal equivalence?
Brandon Lewis
I am sure people would have asked our predecessors those sort of questions with the equivalence that came from the Belfast/Good Friday agreement under the Labour Government at the time of that agreement and the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 that followed it. That is the reality of where we are. As I have said, there is a difficult, painful reality of where we are and the situation where we are in: the reality of not seeing prosecutions and painfully being honest with victims about what is achievable. In the conversations that Operation Kenova and I have had, people have talked, as we have seen in the past 24 hours, about wanting to get to the truth, get to information and get an understanding in many cases of what actually happened. The current system is not working and we need to find a different way forward to do something that can make a difference to get to the truth. That is what we want to achieve with a proper, genuine, delivering information recovery process.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) [V]
Can the Secretary of State confirm that today is but one part of a process that seeks to get buy-in from both parties and people across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland, and engender hope for both current and future generations?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, absolutely. I do not underestimate, and I do appreciate, as I said in my opening remarks, the fact that this is a very difficult, sensitive and complex situation. I appreciate that we are asking people to take a very big step. That is why we want to engage intensively over the weeks ahead, but we are being very honest with people: we need to do something different. The status quo has failed and we need to find a different way forward. I hope we will be able to do that in the weeks ahead, before we legislate in the autumn.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
Can the Secretary of State honestly think of any circumstance where he would say to the families of victims of murder anywhere else in the United Kingdom—including Northern Ireland, under different circumstances—that an amnesty was the way to bring them reconciliation and peace? If not, how does he say to the families of victims of the troubles that this is the correct way forward? Far from this practically meaning that we will move towards reconciliation, if he carries on with it, he will set up another wave of intercommunal unhappiness. That cannot be the way forward.
Brandon Lewis
Where I agree with the hon. Gentleman is on the desire to end the intergenerational challenge and trauma that we are seeing, with families and people now with us who were simply not alive at the time of the troubles and have no recollection of just how dreadful a situation that was for Northern Ireland. We need to stop this intergenerational issue.
I will say in direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question that the troubles represent a uniquely troubled time in our history. The Good Friday/Belfast agreement itself acknowledged that. In focusing on a shared future for Northern Ireland, we sometimes need to make difficult decisions in relation to the past, as his colleagues did and as our colleagues did back at the time of the Belfast agreement. We are in a different situation in Northern Ireland with the troubles from most other crimes because of the sentencing Act that followed the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We need to be honest about that and deal with the reality of where we are, however difficult that may be.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I have had the privilege of working closely alongside the Secretary of State on legacy for much of the past six months, and I believe he is on to something. This is difficult work and it involves compromise, so I am slightly baffled by some of the negativity that I have encountered, both today and previously, with regard to the statute. I think that we in Westminster have a responsibility to get behind my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that his emerging statute will not just unpick and end this unpalatable cycle of vexatious behaviour, but help to create a strategic environment in Northern Ireland whereby truth, reconciliation and alternative forms of dispute resolution can flourish, for the benefit of future peace and stability?
Brandon Lewis
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and the experience that he has shared with our Department over the last period. He has huge experience of serving in the armed forces and in Northern Ireland, and of the reality on the ground. Our intention is absolutely as he outlined. He is absolutely right that the focus has to be to find a way, ultimately, to ensure that families in Northern Ireland—those families who want it—can get to the truth and that, as a wider society in Northern Ireland, we can share and understand what happened and find a way to look forward to the future positively.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House to make his statement. Let me put on the record that the Democratic Unionist party does not support an amnesty for terrorist killers at all. Can the Secretary of State understand why legacy issues leave a bitter taste in the mouth of so many in the Province, who have seen hundreds of millions spent on inquiry after inquiry to ostensibly further the republican agenda to rewrite history to make their abhorrent atrocities seem acceptable? There can be no equivalence whatsoever between the soldier and the police officer who served our country, and those cowardly terrorists who hid behind masks and terrorised under the cover of darkness. We find, honestly, any such attempt at equivalence deeply offensive.
Brandon Lewis
I absolutely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes with clarity and passion, as I know he has done before. Obviously, as I said, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the sentencing Act that followed it created an equivalence legally, in the sense of how we deal legally with the troubles of the past, certainly in terms of sentencing. That is the reality we are dealing with.
That is why I make the point that there is absolutely no question that we would ever accept a moral equivalence between those who served their country, protected life and put themselves at risk—clearly, many suffered injury and loss of life as well, hence I agree that many of those who served are victims too—and those terrorists who put Northern Ireland through, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) rightly outlined, a dark and dreadful period of the troubles that prevented it from moving forward in an economic way, which we are still seeing the fallout from today.
That is why, some 23 years on from the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, we need to be honest about the difficult reality of that, what it means and what we need to do to take that big step to look at how we free society—the young of today and tomorrow—to move forward in a positive way, but never forgetting the past and what happened.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I say to the Secretary of State more in sorrow than in anger that, after four years of promising to do something about this, after two general election manifestos, after endless promises at the Dispatch Box, not just from him but from the Prime Minister, and after he privately assured the veterans’ support group many weeks ago that we would see the Second Reading of a Bill by the summer recess, what do we have today? A consultation document.
The Secretary of State has promised to introduce legislation by the end of the autumn. That means First Reading by Christmas. It will undoubtedly be a controversial Bill, so we will be lucky to get it on to the statute book by next summer. That means that our veterans, many of whom are in the autumn of their lives and many are in ill health, will have to undergo the sword of Damocles for at least another year. I say to our procrastinating Secretary of State: you are the boy who cried wolf once too often. After four years, where is your Bill, Brandon?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend has highlighted the seriousness with which we are taking our engagement. He is quite right that, as I said in the statement, I would have liked to have brought legislation to the House before the summer recess. I committed back in January or February to update the House on where we were before the summer recess, which I am doing. I would have liked to have had a Bill’s Second Reading before the summer recess, but the reality is that the Irish Government have agreed to come into talks with us, which we agreed formally on 24 June. That is a very important and positive step. It is important that we work together on that with the parties in Northern Ireland and with wider civic society, victims’ groups and veterans’ groups as well. That we have put off taking forward legislation highlights our credentials in wanting to engage and find a way forward for people and with people in Northern Ireland.
I absolutely accept my right hon. Friend’s point about how long it is taking. He has shown dogged determination over a very long period to deliver for veterans in Northern Ireland as well as more widely. I am determined that we will end the cycle of investigations for veterans, which—he is right—has gone on for far too long. I have heard his quote about me a couple of times now, and I will have to take it on the chin until I can prove otherwise by bringing forward legislation that ensures that we can end the cycle of investigations that is treating our veterans unfairly and serving nobody. The system in Northern Ireland is not getting to the truth and not getting to information, and therefore it is not allowing that society to move forward and reconcile. All of that must come together as a package. We are determined to do that in partnership with people and to do that at speed.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
Is it the case that vexatious complaints are only half the story and that, as of today, if trials are proposed as the outcome of inquests or the Kenova investigation, they are now redundant? Will the Secretary of State confirm whether live cases against people such as Rita O’Hare, John Downey and Owen Carron will cease to exist? Will those people get off scot-free? What is the true outcome of the proposals?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted some of the challenges in how we deal with such issues and move forward in this difficult reality. As we work through some of the details in the weeks ahead, we will talk to victims’ groups, political parties and people such as him to take things on board to ensure that, when we do legislate, we can help Northern Ireland move forward and have everything dealt with in a genuinely holistic way so that if we say we will end the unfair cycle of investigations that is serving nobody, we can do so properly.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Margaret Valente was just 30 years old when, in 1980, her husband was abducted by the Provisional IRA and held captive for three days before being murdered. Ten years later, her son-in-law was brutally murdered by the Ulster Volunteer Force. To this day, she has no idea whether there was a thorough investigation into either murder. How can the Secretary of State stand there and say that the response to this staggering failure of justice for Margaret and hundreds like her must be to close the book altogether and cruelly deny her any chance of finding the truth about what happened to her loved ones? Would Conservative Ministers be so insensitive about coming up with such ludicrous legislation if a member of their own family had been such a victim?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) has just demonstrated that he has paid no real attention to what we have been talking about, and is clearly not up to speed with what we have been discussing with parties, victims groups and veterans in relation to these proposals. I suggest that he has a look at the Command Paper, because quite the opposite is true. The very fact that those victims have not been able to get to the truth is the issue with which we need to deal, and it is why the information recovery part of this is so important. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the Command Paper and also looks at what I said in my opening statement, which he should have done before standing up and making a comment that was so far from the truth that it almost did not bear answering.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that these proposals are practically identical to those presented by the Defence Committee in its report of April 2017? Does he accept that the time will never come when there will be agreement between all parties, and that it is up to the Government to decide what they are going to do and do it? Does he accept that the vexatious pursuit of soldiers cannot be stopped without a statute of limitations, and that a statute of limitations to conform with international law cannot be selective? Finally, does he accept that a truth recovery mechanism fulfils the requirement of international law for a proper inquiry, and that that is the only way in which people will be likely to reveal what happened—when they no longer have to fear prosecution, which would in any case almost certainly fail?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend has huge expertise and experience in these matters. The Select Committee report is indeed very clear, and goes into great detail about how this can work. My right hon. Friend is also absolutely right—which should surprise none of us—in his understanding of why the information recovery, truth and reconciliation part of this is so important. Not only is it the means for us to move Northern Ireland forward, but—here I return to what I said at the beginning of my statement—it is the means to ensure that what we do is compliant with human rights and article 2. To that end, we need to ensure that the information recovery mechanism is very clear, very focused and able to deliver, and, as we know from examples such as Operation Kenova, that can be done.
I thank my right hon. Friend for the expertise and advice that he has been able to provide, in the Committee’s report and subsequently. What he has said is absolutely right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House for a few minutes so that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Transport Decarbonisation
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Transport decarbonisation is a dull way of describing something much more exciting and far-reaching, because transport is not just about how we get around. It is much more fundamental, as it shapes our towns and cities and our countryside.
Today we are publishing our transport decarbonisation plan, the first in the world, a comprehensive yet urgent strategy to end transport’s contribution to climate change within the next three decades, showing global leadership as we prepare to host COP26 in November.
It is not about stopping people doing things; it is about doing the same things differently. We still want to fly on holiday, but it will be in more efficient aircraft using sustainable fuel. We will still drive our cars on improved roads, but increasingly with zero emissions. And we will still have new development and additional housing, for example, but through more careful planning we will not be forced into high-carbon lifestyles.
We know the world is running out of time to tackle climate change. Unless we take decisive and radical action now, it will soon be too late to prevent catastrophic damage to our planet, which will also threaten our security and our prosperity. At the same time, terms such as “decarbonisation” and “net zero” seem abstract to many people. This plan argues that transport is not just how people get around but it influences our living standards and, in fact, our whole quality of life.
Transport can shape all these things, for good or for bad. Bad is traffic congestion and pollution, which also contribute to climate change. Indeed, transport is now the single biggest contributor to UK greenhouse gas emissions. Decarbonisation is not a technocratic process; it is how we fix some of that harm. It is how we make sure that transport shapes the country and the economy in ways that are good. It is about taking filth out of the air and creating better places. It is about a second industrial revolution, creating hundreds of thousands of green jobs in places that were the cradle of the first.
Driving all this will be the consumer making greener travel choices informed by better data. The Government will work with industry to meet our carbon budgets and to keep this green transport revolution on track.
What is exciting about the plan is that for the first time we have an opportunity to decarbonise transport without curtailing our freedoms. It will not stop us driving, commuting to work or going on holiday, but we will be using zero-emission cars, motorcycles and trucks. We will be travelling in zero-emission trains, ferries, buses and coaches. We will be cycling and walking much more, and we will be flying in more efficient aircraft, using sustainable aviation fuels.
I accept that, even a few years ago, the vision that we are setting out today would have seemed over-ambitious, but such is the progress that we are making in this country in technology and engineering, in building momentum for the net zero challenge ahead, and in showing real political leadership for the biggest challenge in our lifetime that we can now commit to a bold strategy to help wean transport off fossil fuels and reach net zero in under 30 years. We have already announced that the sale of new cars and vans powered solely by petrol or diesel will cease in 2030, and that all cars and vans will be fully zero emission at the tailpipe by 2035—a commitment that would not have been deliverable while we were a member of the EU, because our own type of proof of framework would have breached the single market had we tried.
To underpin these phase-out dates, today we have published our 2035 delivery plan, which sets out the investment and measures from Government to deliver mass ownership of zero-emission cars and vans. We have published a Green Paper, one of 10 documents that sit alongside the transport decarbonisation plan, which shows our new road-vehicle CO2 emissions regulatory framework, which will be ambitious in decarbonising road transport and tailored to the UK’s needs. This could include a zero-emission mandate for manufacturers, so that they sell an ever-increasing proportion of zero-emission vehicles before they can sell any others.
The decarbonisation plan goes further still. With a commitment to consult on a world-leading pledge to phase out sales of all new non-zero emission road vehicles, from motorcycles to heavy goods vehicles. We believe that that should be from 2040 at the latest, and it is a massive step towards cleaning up road transport altogether. By doing so, we will remove the source of more than 90% of our total domestic transport emissions. We will go further, creating a net zero rail network by 2050 and replacing all our diesel-only trains by 2040 with super-clean technologies such as hydrogen. Hundreds of electric buses are already operating in many UK cities, but soon that will be thousands, which will benefit not just urban areas but the whole country. Remote and rural areas that have not always been best served by such changes in the past will see the benefits this time.
Completely clean buses will form the backbone of our local public transport system, and we will continue to work with industry to roll out a national electric vehicle charging network as I announced at the Dispatch Box. Nearly 25,000 public charging devices have already been installed, including more chargers for every 100 miles of major, key strategic road than any country in Europe. That will include smart vehicle charging to reduce energy bills when demand for electricity in the system is at its lowest. Something that will also benefit will be the Government’s fleet of 40,000 vehicles, which we aim to make fully electric by 2027.
We will consult on phasing out sales of new, non-zero-emission-capable domestic ships too, and we will be a hub for green air travel. Today, we have launched a consultation that sets out how we will deliver net zero aviation by 2050, working with the Jet Zero Council with a target to achieve zero-emission transatlantic flight within our generation. If that seems more like science fiction, it is interesting to know that we have already flown the world’s first zero-carbon hydrogen aircraft at Cranfield airport in Bedfordshire. It took a 20 minute flight—another world-first for Britain.
We will support and incentivise green development by aligning billions of pounds of infrastructure investment with our net zero programme. This includes the billions we are investing to build a thriving electric supply chain, to secure gigafactories here in the UK, to create more efficient aviation engines, lighter planes and sustainable fuels and to develop clean freight transport. Just as green transport will not stop us travelling, it will not hold back industry either. In fact, it will open up unparalleled opportunities for new jobs and enterprise. In recent weeks alone, we have seen both Nissan and Vauxhall commit to massive investments in electric vehicles and battery production in Sunderland and Ellesmere Port. This is the modern-day equivalent of the early investment in our railway 200 years ago or, indeed, in our fledgling motor industry a century later. What we are seeing here is the start of a second greener industrial revolution, which, just like the first, will be driven by transport, but this time delivering triple the benefits: for our economy, for jobs and for the future of our planet.
But we cannot simply rely on technology. Nor can we believe that zero-emission vehicles will solve all our problems, because they will not, especially in meeting our medium-term targets for the 2030s. The pandemic has provided a chance to rethink how we travel and how we do public transport. In fact, we have already seen a 46% increase in the number of road miles being cycled last year, the biggest increase since the second world war. Cycling increased more in a single year than in the previous 20 years put together. With £2 billion of new funding, more than 300 cycling and walking schemes are being delivered, and many more are on the way. We have also pledged £3 billion to revolutionise local buses in England outside London, with London-style cheap flat fares and integrated ticketing. And of course we are creating Great British Railways, to bring the railway network back together and make it easier for people to travel by train. We want to make public transport, cycling and walking the natural first choice for all who can use them.
The year 2050 may seem like a long way into the future, but it is just 29 years away. That is why the pace of change will be unparalleled, and why this new decarbonisation plan is a landmark in the evolution of the way we do transport in this country. We are the first country in the world to do this, taking a firm leadership position as we host COP26 later this year in Glasgow and going from being part of the climate change problem to a major part of the solution. That is the transformation we must deliver by 2050, and that is the transformation we will achieve with this transport decarbonisation plan. I am placing a copy of the plan in the Library of the House, and I commend this statement to the House.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. We have not yet had the joy of reading the plan, although I look forward to seeing it later in the Library when I get pointed towards the fiction section, as with most of the strategies produced by the Government recently.
We are, I hope, coming through the covid-19 pandemic, but we cannot forget that we are still in this climate emergency, and nor can we miss the opportunity to kick-start a new green economy built on decent, well-paid, highly skilled jobs. With transport now the largest contributor to UK emissions, this should have been the chance for Ministers to set out an ambitious plan that would really lead the way, ahead of COP26—not warm words or reannouncements but a real plan to support aviation, maritime, rail, freight and local public transport alongside active travel.
This climate emergency required urgent action many years ago, but after a decade in office, I am afraid this Government have been found wanting. In the time they have been in office, the number of petrol and diesel vans has rocketed by 1 million. That means more polluting vans on our roads, and much of that increase can be attributed to last-mile courier delivery vehicles. The Government have been silent on an approach to dealing with that. Under these plans, the Government will treat the likes of Amazon, which has boomed during the pandemic, no differently from the self-employed builder who will take their van at the start of the job and often leave it parked outside the house until the job is finished. There will be no differentiation at all between those different uses.
Today the average age of a van on the road is the oldest since records began. Nearly 1 million vehicles on the road are more than 13 years old, yet there is no van scrappage scheme, let alone one for cars. All we have on offer is that the Government have committed to do what they should be doing already, which is to electrify the entire fleet of Government cars and vans by 2027, but how can we trust them to deliver on that promise when their Department for Transport has managed to fully electrify just 2% of its fleet? There is nothing to support backing Britain in the future and the economy by making and buying more vehicles here, as championed by the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves).
The Secretary of State knows that smart electric vehicle charging points are important, but he also knows that there is a woeful lack of them across the country. The Government must be ambitious, but they must also genuinely make sure that the investment reaches all parts of the country. Westminster has 390 charging points per 100,000 population, compared with just 5.1 per 100,000 for people in Wigan. There are more charging points in London than in the whole of the north of England and the whole of the midlands combined, so the investment is not being levelled out in an equal way. Where is the plan to accelerate that and to make sure that every part of the country gets its fair share? Although the Secretary of State mentions the zero-emission vehicle mandate, it is only nodded to. There is no strong commitment and no firm plan in place to achieve that.
Aside from the environmental emergency, there is also a clear health emergency. Forty thousand people a year die from air pollution-related illnesses, so we must be leaders in modal shift away from private cars and ambitious on investment in active travel, yet the Government have overseen a reduction of thousands of bus routes. At the same time, ticket prices have rocketed on buses and trains. The Government have not delivered even a single one of the 4,000 green buses that they have repeatedly promised, and even if they were to deliver on that promise, it is a drop in the ocean and would not address the remaining 20,000 buses that will not be replaced under that scheme.
Beyond the bus, the Secretary of State talks about long-promised money for cycling, but when will that money be spent? Will we be here next year hearing the same re-announcement? Unless would-be cyclists feel safe, they will not make that shift. The Government’s own survey reported that 66% of those who responded said that the roads were too dangerous for them to consider cycling on.
Moving on to aviation, the Secretary of State wants to get to net zero international aviation emissions by 2050 and 2040 for domestic flights. Why, then, is his Department planning to cut air passenger duty on those same flights rather than having a targeted sectoral deal to have very firm commitments to decarbonisation built in? As usual, we will get more Jet Zero Council consultations and more meetings will come through the pipeline, but where is the action?
The list goes on and on and on, including the failure to deliver on a genuinely flexible season ticket to get commuters back on our trains. Instead, we see a £1 billion cut from Network Rail’s infrastructure budget and, at the same time, fares for passengers are increasing all the time.
We were promised an ambitious plan to lead the world ahead of COP26. If that was the test, I am afraid the Government have failed.
Grant Shapps
I am afraid that we have been here before a couple of times of late, and I understand the difficulty for the hon. Gentleman. He freely acknowledges that he has not actually seen or read this document, yet he has a stream of criticism for what is inside it, which I find extraordinary. Rather than taking in what I thought was a quite detailed statement, so that he could hear all the various different points, instead he read from the pre-ordained script, which claimed that none of the things that we were doing was really happening.
Let me remind the House, therefore, what has actually happened. The hon. Gentleman says he does not think we have been moving fast enough. Let us just check the record. While Labour was in power, it delivered 63 miles of electrified track. In just the last three years, under this Government, we have done 700 miles. He points to a lack of charging, although I announced at the Dispatch Box a couple of weeks ago—and I commented on this in my speech—that there are 25,000 public chargers.
I should also say that there are a couple of hundred thousand private chargers on top of that. I am sorry to hear that Wigan’s Labour council does not have enough charging points; I will ensure that I contact the council this afternoon, on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, to make sure that it applies for the grants that are available so that we can sort that out for residents in Labour Wigan forthwith.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned zero emission vehicle mandates; I am pleased that it sounds as though there is some agreement on them. The decarbonisation plan discusses mandates and we have launched a consultation today. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that we cannot simply spring something as important as a zero emission mandate on the entire sector; we have to consult the sector first, so that consultation is being launched today.
Another nine consultations, technical documents or outcomes from consultations are being launched today alongside the plan, which I again invite the hon. Gentleman to read. I accept that he will not have done so at this time, but I think he will find that a lot of his concerns and criticisms are covered. For example, he asked where the 4,000 buses are; I have some good news for him, and it is not just that when one comes along there are three: there are 900 buses in production right now, and 50 are already on the road.[Official Report, 20 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 5MC.] That puts us easily on track to meet our target to have 4,000 in production by the end of this Parliament. That is good news for the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Jet Zero Council, and he is absolutely right. I make no apology for the Government meeting with academia and the sector. We have had our third main Jet Zero Council meeting and there have been dozens of sub-meetings of the technical working groups. What I hear is that the Opposition do not understand. Thanks to our Jet Zero Council work, we have already flown the world’s first hydrogen aircraft in this country. But it is not good enough for them; they still think we are not doing anything. I have some good news for the hon. Gentleman: that aircraft is being upsized to a 19 or 20-seater aircraft that will be flown shortly, so he will not have to wait long for more news on that front, along with the electrification of aircraft with the likes of Rolls-Royce and others.
I heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say about increasing rail usage, particularly coming out of the pandemic—it is a carbon-friendly way to travel—and I heard his party’s previous criticisms of the flexible season ticket. His stats, I am sure inadvertently, are completely dodgy. They failed to take into account the fact that anybody travelling two or three days a week would be at least 20% better off by comparison than if they bought a regular ticket or indeed a season ticket. I saw the hon. Gentleman’s YouTube video on the subject— I invite Members to watch it—and will write to him to explain chapter and verse why he was misquoting stats and information. I am pleased he reminded me of that because it gives me the opportunity to write back to him. For the purposes of clarity, I will ensure that I publish that letter for the whole House so that Members are able to judge the stats for themselves.
Lastly—I know that a lot of Members wish to speak—we are very proud of the transport decarbonisation plan, and I have mentioned the nine or 10 documents that back it up. An incredible level of detail has gone into that work. I ask: where is Labour’s plan? Where are its detailed plans? Where is the technical analysis? Labour has not read our plan and does not have one of its own, but all I ever hear is that Labour is still up for criticising ours.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
When I was told that the Secretary of State had sent the final draft plan back because it was not ambitious enough, I harboured hopes that it might well be a serious plan to match the seriousness of our times. It would certainly require investment on a scale to which the Chancellor would not naturally be disposed. Sadly, though, from zero emission cars and buses to rail, maritime, active travel and aviation, the lack of ambition—certainly relative to Scotland—stands out.
Scotland aims to cut car use by 20% by 2030, and we will spend 10% of the transport capital budget on active travel. For the cars that remain, we have twice as many rapid charging points per head, with 60% of them free to use—a proportion three times higher than England’s 20%. Meanwhile, the UK Government have halved the plug-in car grant. Why will the Secretary of State not match Scotland’s ambition on car use? How does he think he will meet his EV targets with poor charging infrastructure and by reducing incentives, and without a scrappage scheme, while a substantial price gap between petrol and diesel cars and zero emission cars remains?
The pledge for 4,000 new buses represents only a 10th of the English fleet. Even now that the ZEBRA—zero emission buses regional area—scheme is finally in place, progress is glacial. By contrast, Scotland plans to remove half its diesel fleet by 2023 and has the equivalent of more than 2,700 buses already on order. Will the Secretary of State confirm when the 4,000 buses will actually be delivered under the current scheme and when the next scheme will begin?
The Secretary of State aims to decarbonise rail in England by 2050, which is 15 years after Scotland aims to do that. Scotland has legged away in a programme of rolling electrification. The Transport Committee recommended a similar programme for England, so will the right hon. Gentleman commit to such a programme matching Scotland’s pace? If so, when will the first schemes be announced?
For decarbonising the maritime sector there is only lip service, but I will try to end with consensus on aviation—something we agree is difficult, and in which hydrogen, alongside sustainable aviation fuels, will play a leading role. Again, Scotland leads the way, with Government investment in decarbonisation programmes and plans for electric and hydrogen test flights, working with partners such as ZeroAvia and Loganair. That is part of our ambition to make the highlands and islands the world’s first zero emission aviation region by 2040. We have a leading position in hydrogen aviation technology, but we must increase investment to ensure we stay that way.
Grant Shapps
I am always keen to work across the House, wherever we agree, including on that last point about aviation and, indeed, the number of car chargers in Scotland. That is all good, but I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman is talking about the success of the car charger roll-out while also being anti-car and saying that he does not want people to use a car, or even electric vehicles that are green. I do not understand how he can be proud of both points at the same time.
My main point is that he comes to the Chamber quite often, either remotely or in person, and he sings the praises of the Scottish Government. I therefore thought I would check the facts for the clarity of the House, and time and again, the SNP Government have missed their own statutory target for reducing emissions. That was not for one or two years; it is now for the third year in a row.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I warmly welcome the strategy outlined by my right hon. Friend. Will he reassure rural constituents such as mine in North Devon, where there are fewer buses and longer journeys for even basic amenities, that they will not be left behind?
Grant Shapps
Yes indeed, and the bus strategy included £3 billion to do a number of things, including getting to a London-style service for other parts of England, and the rural bus strategy. We are currently trialling that in 17 different areas, and my hon. Friend’s area will benefit from the outcome of that work. Her work in championing the bus network for her constituents is welcome, and it will pay dividends.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Restoring Your Railway fund and the £3 billion bus back better strategy are both vital to levelling up in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, following decades of local bus and rail decline. Does my right hon. Friend agree that by reopening the Stoke to Leek line, providing access for upgrades at Longport railway station, and ensuring that Stoke-on-Trent secures a major piece of funding to improve our services and roadside infrastructure, we can reduce emissions in our fantastic city?
Grant Shapps
Nobody—perhaps apart from the other two Stoke MPs—does as much to promote the interests of everybody in Stoke as my hon. Friend, and the Stoke to Leek line is something to be passionate about. I know he has put in a bid to the Restoring Your Railway fund, which will come to a conclusion this summer. I wish him every success in that competition so that we can make active travel as well as railway lines the first choice for everybody in his city.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I looked for a copy of the plan online this morning, but alas I was unable to find it. I see it now, but it is tantalisingly out of reach. I do not know whether to believe what I saw in the press release this morning about the Government’s commitment to achieve net zero aviation in this country by 2040. I saw no mention of that in the statement, but if that is the Government’s commitment—as I say, I do not know—it is not clear that developments in aviation will help us to reach a net zero aviation industry by 2040. I have been speaking to businesses that are doing incredible work on hydrogen aviation, and I am excited about the possibilities. However, if we are aiming for 2040 net zero aviation, there must be a combination of technological development and flight reduction; otherwise, it will not be possible. On that basis, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that reducing flights will form part of the plan—if it is a plan—to get the country to net zero aviation emissions by 2040, and will he therefore act decisively to stop expansion at Heathrow?
Grant Shapps
These are good questions. I just point out that the written statement was circulated to the House at 7 am this morning. It does indeed confirm that the plan is for domestic aviation to reach net zero by 2040. The hon. Lady rightly asks a list of questions about whether that is possible. I point out to the House that, with transport itself accounting for perhaps 27% to 30% of total CO2 emissions, roads account for 90% of that 27% and the aviation sector 1.2%, which is a small sliver, but a very difficult bit to decarbonise. Therefore, the answer to her question is emphatically yes, because I have been working with the Jet Zero Council over these recent months. We will, for example, have planes for VIPs returning from COP26 with the offer of sustainable aviation fuel to take them home. That is in 2021. We have until 2040 to develop some of the other great plans, including hydrogen and battery technology. So, yes, I am confident that we can get there and it is very much included in the plan.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s shiny new plan. I, too, hold a shiny new plan from the midlands engine: a 10-point plan for green growth released this month. Point 2 is about net zero transport. I am proud that, as a midlands MP, the midlands has an automotive industry that employs 293,000 people and 16 of the world’s top 20 automotive suppliers. Will he meet me and people from the midlands engine to discuss how Bosworth, Leicestershire and, indeed, the country could benefit from both our plans?
Grant Shapps
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has been doing with the midlands engine, and I thank him for welcoming the plan as well. I think it would be a great idea if we were to meet up with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), to discuss exactly that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thought the Secretary of State must have been reading Labour’s manifesto, in which we set out a comprehensive, sustainable transport plan.
I want to ask about the infrastructure that this Government are building, because we need good infrastructure to see that modal shift and to ensure that transport is not polluting our urban centres in particular. May I ask the Secretary of State why London North Eastern Railway and Network Rail are building 1,297 new car parking spaces in the centre of York? Moreover, on the York Central site, which is owned by Network Rail, a further 2,600 parking spaces are being built, which will suck congestion and pollution into the heart of my city. Will he meet with me to discuss this matter?
Grant Shapps
I hesitate to mention this, because I do not want to embarrass the hon. Lady, but she talks about our reading from Labour’s manifesto, and I can assure her that that is not the case. It was, of course, an “utterly unachievable” manifesto when it came to net zero. Those are not my words, but the words of the GMB union at the time.
We are not anti-car. I cannot get this across enough. We are investing £27.4 billion in building roads. We believe that not just cars but buses and bicycles require roads to get around. We want those roads to be of good quality. We want to reduce the congestion and therefore reduce the environmental damage as well. Quite simply, we are not anti-car. I know that York will have many different attributes, next to that fabulous York National Railway Museum, which I enjoy visiting so much. Who knows, one day York might be home to Great British Railways.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for today’s announcement. Does he agree that it is the work of business that is providing the solution to these problems, from the fabulous endeavour and effort going into the Jet Zero Council to Electric Avenue, at that former fount of petrol heads that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), visited last week to see the new array of electric vehicles that are coming. Finally, does the Secretary of State also agree that it is such a great shame that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is not in her place today to hear about the fabulous solutions to these problems?
Grant Shapps
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work as the UK’s net zero business champion, promoting all these causes. He is absolutely right—I have not been to Goodwin, but yesterday I went to Bedford to see a Formula E car, which is an electric racing car. The technology is moving in about 18 months from the cars to, for example, the Nissan Leaf that I stood next to. It really is a tremendous transfer of technology from one to the other. I think that all his work in encouraging us along, working hard to push for the jet zero, the net zero, the car zero, is doing a fantastic job and holding us on the road to zero.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is certainly in Duracell bunny mode today. I share the concern of the shadow Transport Minister about the lack of focus in making transport vehicles in Britain. The Minister talked of new buses, but will the hydrogen-powered buses come from Northern Ireland and the electric-powered ones from Scotland and Leeds, or will the British taxpayer once again be subsidising jobs in China and Europe? That is quite apart from trains, cars, vans and trucks. The Government are a massive customer, so will he use that buying power to boost British industry and support British workers?
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but in this day and age it is wholly unsustainable for Shrewsbury to be serviced by diesel trains, and at the last general election I promised many young people that I would campaign for the electrification of the line between Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton. He will be pleased to know that all the MPs between Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton support that vital investment. We are getting great support from Midlands Connect; Mr Paul Butters and others are being very helpful. The electrification of the line would not only massively reduce journey times between Shrewsbury and our regional capital of Birmingham, but massively reduce carbon emissions. So will the Secretary of State join me and support our campaign to ensure that that vital link between Shrewsbury and Wolverhampton is finally electrified?
Grant Shapps
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his doughty campaign for the electrification of the line from Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton. I know that he has met the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), to discuss this subject and I look forward to seeing further progress. I mentioned that we had done 700 miles of electrification in just three years—over 1,100 since we came to power—and I hope that it is coming to him soon.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]
As the Secretary of State outlined in his statement, electric vehicles will be key to decarbonisation. What steps is he taking to address concerns about the vulnerability of charging networks to attacks by hackers?
Grant Shapps
That is an excellent question. I have been speaking to the energy infrastructure, not only to make sure that it is secure against hackers, but also that we are able to ensure provision, as the number of people buying electric cars continues to increase. It is worth mentioning that one in seven people who bought a car this year bought a car with a plug on the end of it, effectively, so electric vehicles are being used in ever-greater numbers. The question of electricity security, and all our infrastructure security, is also wrapped up in the good work that happens throughout government, and I will ensure that I press the hon. Gentleman’s point home as we have those further discussions as well.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I, too, warmly welcome the statement and I look forward to digging in to the plan later. May I pick up on a point around HGVs, because they are incredibly polluting? I have many constituents who live alongside the M25 and the M3, where that is an issue, and they warmly welcome the consultation process in terms of trying to decarbonise HGVs and buses and stop that pollution.
Sustainability has to be sustainable, so I can see why there is a need for consultation to ensure that it works and that we do this properly, but as a result of the consultation, will my right hon. Friend really try to push forward as quickly as possible in getting diesel, getting HGVs, off the roads, decarbonising them and making a huge difference to my constituents, for whom that cannot come soon enough?
Grant Shapps
A small but important sub-clause to my announcement that we will be consulting to outlaw the sale of diesel HGVs by 2040 is that by 2035—five years earlier—we will already have done that for lorries up to 26 tonnes. A 26-tonner is a very considerable size of lorry, so my hon. Friend’s prayers may well be answered much sooner than he fears.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Poor air quality caused by congestion causes health problems and costs lives. This is a particular problem for my constituents in the village of Galgate, which has the A6 running down the middle of it. Will the Secretary of State look favourably on plans to reconfigure junction 33 of the M6 to create a bypass for the village? Regardless of that, there will still be buses running through the village. I note that the Secretary of State said that some zero-emission buses were in production, but does he admit that his target of 4,000 is unambitious, when that represents only about one tenth of the English fleet?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that, if anything, we are ahead of schedule on the bus target, with 900 already on their way—in production—so I hope that we can go even further.[Official Report, 20 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 5MC.] Our £3 billion bus strategy is by far and away the largest for generations, and I look forward to it helping her constituents. I will certainly mention her point about junction 33 of the A6 to the Roads Minister and ask her to come back to the hon. Lady.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Decarbonising our roads will be greatly assisted if we transfer more freight to rail. What progress is being made on delivering an east-west rail freight corridor from the Humber ports across to Liverpool and the west coast ports? As well as being a boost to the economy of my constituency, that would result in a massive reduction in HGV movements on the M62, resulting in less congestion and the accompanying pollution.
Grant Shapps
I am very excited about the opportunities to take traffic from ports and put it on to rail. It is known as intermodal, because it requires the delivery of gauge capacity enhancements in order to make that flow. We are spending a lot of time on getting containers, biomass and the like to operate on the trans-Pennine routes, principally between the west and east coast ports of Liverpool, Immingham and Hull, and Tees inland terminal. We are working very hard on exactly my hon. Friend’s suggestion, as we recognise that it can take a lot of traffic off the roads.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Key to the successful decarbonisation of transportation will, of course, be the availability of sustainable fuels. In that regard, in Aberdeen the Scottish Government and the local authority have put their money where their mouth is and backed Scotland’s first commercial at-scale hydrogen production and distribution facility. Sadly, the UK Government have not committed a single penny towards the Aberdeen hydrogen hub. In that regard and in good faith, can I ask the Secretary of State whether he will review that decision—with a view, of course, to opening the cheque book and backing Aberdeen’s renewable future?
Grant Shapps
I am pleased to say that we have in many senses backed this, because we are of course ensuring that the consequentials from all our decisions, including decisions on the decarbonisation of transport, are made in such a way that the Government in Scotland are able to benefit from them. As I mentioned earlier, it is very good to work closely together on these things. Perhaps in that spirit, I can ask the hon. Gentleman to press the Scottish Government to ensure that they reach their statutory requirements to deliver carbon cuts over the next few years as well.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that to tackle climate change, we need to decarbonise—not demonise—cars, vans and taxis? With that in mind, will he talk to the Mayor of London about dismantling some of the schemes that have unjustifiably removed access to those vehicles to so many of the streets of central London?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about our stance. We are not against the car. We want people to have access to cars; indeed, in rural areas they are often the only way for people to get around, although obviously we want to improve bus services and the rest of it. We intend to carry on investment to make sure that cars can run without damaging people’s health and the environment. That makes sense.
I am afraid that too often the Mayor of London gets the wrong end of the stick with all this. He seems to spend his time working out new ways to introduce boundary taxes and the like to try to charge people who are not his constituents for the cost of running his administration in London. It is not on.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Secretary of State probably will not know that I am very much involved in the Optimised Waste Logistics group and the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality, but does he know, as I do from consultation with the industry, that the people in it think the report is not ambitious enough? Since the report was leaked, or came out, they have had a good idea what is in it, but they want to move much faster. The technology is there, especially for heavy goods vehicles, which are 4% of the wheels on the road but 25% of the pollution. The industry is saying to Ministers, “We can do it faster.” Hydrogen technology is far more advanced than the Secretary of State has been saying today. If he gives industry the nod and the incentives, it can deliver much better targets than 2030 or 2040.
Grant Shapps
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for this agenda and his work on logistics and clean air. As far as I am aware, this is already the world’s most ambitious plan to decarbonise the transport economy. He will be pleased to hear that I will say more about experimentation with things like hydrogen trucks and electrifying trucks, not just with internal batteries but potentially with overhead wires.
I hope he will agree that rather than coming here today to spring an announcement on the HGV sector, it is absolutely right that we make it clear we have a plan and that we then consult on it. That is why Logistics UK, which is far and away the largest haulier logistics representative organisation in the UK, has said that the plan gives
“confidence and clarity on the steps…on the pathway to net zero”.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he go further on what we will do to ensure a sustainable maritime fleet, for example by ensuring that around our coastal communities there is opportunity for plug-in processes for boats and ships, particularly for fishing around our coastal waters? In the long-term, will he look at alternative fuels that can power the long-distance fleets?
Grant Shapps
That is very much at the forefront of our mind; I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for welcoming the statement. We already have plans in place to challenge stakeholders to agree a course to zero in maritime by 2050. The UK has a very rich maritime history. The International Maritime Organisation is based in London, although it is a UN organisation, and we have been working closely with it on developing the shipping route to zero. We look forward to a lot more developments in the area, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on them.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
We know that the aviation industry has had a very difficult year and that the best way to build back better is to ensure investment into building planes that are greener, cleaner and quieter. Does the Secretary of State agree that for a future that benefits public health, his Department must prioritise reducing noise pollution from major flight paths? It is a real concern for many of my constituents, who live under two flight paths. Will he meet me to look at the issue?
Grant Shapps
I absolutely agree that reducing noise pollution is critical. We are doing it in several ways. We have just passed legislation that redesigns airspace management and enables aircraft to take off on a steeper climb and come down on a steeper descent, which will help to reduce the noise footprint.
The hon. Lady is also right that as we decarbonise, we will have engines that are not necessarily jet engines, which are notoriously noisy. New technologies are leading to much quieter aircraft. I look forward to working with her and her constituents on the issue. I am very happy to set up a meeting for her with the aviation Minister—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who is an expert in the area—to discuss the matter further.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) [V]
I strongly welcome the range of measures being taken to decarbonise transport. However, in the highly rural areas of my constituency, in some cases there is simply no practical alternative to car use. While the cost of electric vehicles remains prohibitive for many, and as yet there is no infrastructure for charging points locally, many constituents are concerned that they may end up being financially penalised despite having no alternative. What assurances can my right hon. Friend provide that my constituents’ needs and finances have been fully taken into account as we work towards finding solutions for the decarbonisation of transport?
Grant Shapps
Reassuringly for my hon. Friend, £1.8 billion is the answer: £582 million for plug-in vehicle grants towards her constituents’ needs and £1.3 billion for the roll-out of that charging infrastructure. Often, we seem to have this discussion in abstract, because we do not acknowledge that there are a couple of hundred thousand people charging their vehicles from home, as we get to the point where there are more charging locations than petrol stations. Our job is to ensure that there is sufficient on-street parking and charging locations.
We have some fantastic technology, including wireless technology, which we are trialling, to ensure that cars can charge up even as they drive, and certainly as they are parked. I also point my hon. Friend to the national bus strategy, which could assist in her area. Where buses have not run before, we would like to get them running regularly enough that people have further alternatives.
Point of Order
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter relating to another Member of Parliament, sadly, whom I have of course notified, and of which I gave you prior notice.
I understand that, following the end of a six-week suspension ordered by the independent expert panel for harassment of staff, a Member has now returned to the estate, as is that Member’s right. Taking a safeguarding approach, I am concerned that we have taken every possible step to prevent and manage any possible risk. As you may know, I have some expertise in this area. Unfortunately, one of the best predictors of future risk is past behaviour. I would therefore like to know, on behalf of colleagues and staff who have raised this matter with me, in the interests of safeguarding, what risk assessment has been done of the return of that Member to the estate? Have experts been consulted? Is there is a risk management plan in place, and what guidance has been provided to staff to reassure them?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for having given me notice that she intended to raise it. I am pleased that she confirmed that she has notified the Member to whom she refers. Although it is not appropriate for me to comment on individual cases on the Floor of the House, I can confirm that the hon. Member’s suspension, as agreed by the House, has now come to an end. In those circumstances, the Chair has no authority to prevent a Member from attending the estate.
The hon. Lady raised concerns about safety and security of other Members and of people who work on the estate; of course, the safety and security of everyone who works here is of paramount importance to Mr Speaker and, indeed, to all of us. The House will be aware that the independent complaints and grievance scheme is in place and is designed to ensure that everyone working here feels supported and safe. The ICGS helpline is able to offer guidance and support to anyone who has witnessed or experienced bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct. There are also other forms of support for staff in the House, including the employee assistance programme. I am specifically mentioning all these matters because it is probably the case that many people who work on the estate are not aware of the support and advice available to them, and of the care that we all take about how they go about their everyday lives while in employment here.
If anybody does feel unsafe, they should speak to their manager, contact the helpline or consider using some of the other sources of support that are available. Everybody who works here should feel safe. I sincerely hope that these messages will be taken seriously. Of course, most experienced Members of Parliament are always very happy when those who work for them or in proximity to them come to them for advice or guidance on matters about which they might be concerned.
I appreciate that the hon. Lady was making a very specific point, and I have explained that the point she raised specifically is not a matter for the Chair, but it is a matter for the Chair and, indeed, for all of us to have responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of everybody who serves this place. I hope I have been able to give her some reassurance.
I will now suspend the House for two minutes while arrangements are made for the next item of business.
Planning and Local Representation
Wednesday 14th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Local Representation Bill 2021-22 View all Planning and Local Representation Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
15:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 219 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give people who have made representations about development plans the right to participate in associated examination hearings; to require public consultation on development proposals; to grant local authorities power to apply local design standards for permitted development and to refuse permitted development proposals that would be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of an individual or community; to make planning permission for major housing schemes subject to associated works starting within two years; and for connected purposes.
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is a privilege to introduce my first ten-minute rule motion on such an important issue, which is affecting so many of my constituents in Luton South and so many people across the country. We need a bold plan to tackle the housing crisis, but the Government’s planning White Paper will restrict local communities’ ability to shape their own area, allow for the creation of poor-quality housing through permitted development rights and allow developers to sit on planning permissions rather than build desperately needed, truly affordable housing. It amounts to nothing more than a developer’s charter that restricts communities while benefiting wealthy developers. This Bill would ensure that local communities’ right to participate in the planning process at a local level and on individual applications is protected.
This measure is vital, as the Government’s White Paper intends to create a zonal approach to local plans, weakening local authorities’ and communities’ detailed oversight of the planning process. That represents a shift away from public engagement and scrutiny of individual planning decisions on applications to engagement only at the overarching local plan stage, which greatly restricts, and in many cases removes, the rights of local councillors, local resident associations and local residents to shape or object to a particular planning application in their area. It seems as though the Government’s solution to speeding up planning is to remove the rights of local people and councillors to have a say in the planning process, rather than tackling other obstacles. The Government’s plan to remove the voice of local communities has been opposed by a wide range of groups, from the Local Government Association to Civic Voice and the Town and Country Planning Association.
The delivery of new, truly affordable homes must be pursued through a locally led planning system with public participation at its heart. Indeed, just last night Luton Borough Council unanimously passed a motion that emphasised that planning works best when developers work with the local community and called on the Government to protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications. I would point out that even councillors from the Government’s party supported that motion. The Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, of which I am a member, also recommended in “The future of the planning system in England” report:
“All individuals must still be able to comment and influence upon all individual planning proposals.”
This Bill would reflect Luton Borough Council’s motion and the Select Committee’s recommendation by legislating to ensure that people have the right to participate in development plans and associated examination hearings.
The Government also intend to end the statutory planning notice requirement to inform local people through notices in local papers, on community noticeboards, and on lampposts and, potentially, through hard copies of documents, in favour of using just technology. The Select Committee heard about how local people want to continue to be able to comment on specific local planning applications and that the proposal to drop the legal requirement to publish planning notices in local newspapers and the like would create a “postcode lottery” as to where that opportunity continues. That would undermine local democracy, by creating barriers for those who do not have digital access, such as the elderly or those on low incomes. Instead, the Select Committee recommended retaining “existing statutory notices” for all local authorities, alongside using technology, to make the planning process as accessible as possible.
This Bill would also expand the right to participate to include permitted development, which currently does not allow for objections from residents, and also seeks to allow local planning authorities to set local design standards for when an application is made for prior approval through the permitted development process. Constituents have also contacted me to raise their frustrations at how local planning authorities do not have sufficient power to oppose planning applications. The Select Committee has heard that permitted development rights
“weaken local authorities’ ability to shape places; and diminish community engagement in the planning process.”
A report the Government commissioned on the impact of permitted development homes concluded that
“permitted development conversions do seem to create worse-quality residential environments than planning permission conversions in relation to a number of factors widely linked to the health, well-being and quality of life of future occupiers.”
Many Members from across the House will also have heard horror stories of where permitted development rights have allowed the creation of poor-quality housing in their constituency. One such example is at Unity House in Luton, an office building converted through permitted development rights which houses families with children alongside a four-lane inner ring road. This permitted conversion brought more people into an area that is within an air quality management zone because of traffic congestion. It was allowed to happen because permitted development rights bypass necessary planning permission and air quality regulations. When the Government’s own former housing adviser Ben Clifford warned that the changes to permitted development risk creating the “slums of the future” I had to agree.
This Bill allows local planning authorities to refuse prior approval if the development would be to the detriment of the health and wellbeing of an individual or the wider community, therefore preventing poor-quality homes that are in inappropriate locations or that lack adequate community infrastructure, such as shops, schools and parks.
I have seen in Luton children having to play football in the middle of the pedestrian area in the town centre as a consequence of a higher density of housing being created in former commercial premises in the town centre under PDR without any consideration of local amenities. The children in my town deserve so much better.
Last year Labour formally opposed the Government’s changes to PDR which allowed for additional storeys to be placed on existing developments such as flats and houses. It is clear that the measures in this Bill are needed to prevent the creation of homes through PDR, further damaging people’s, including children’s, health and wellbeing. The housing crisis will not be addressed through PDR’s creation of poor-quality housing and will certainly not be addressed while developers sit on planning permissions. The failure to ensure that sites with planning permission have been built on is a key driver behind the Government’s poor record on house building.
According to analysis by the Local Government Association, more than 1.1 million homes granted planning permission in England in the past decade are yet to be built. As the LGA also said, local plans are not holding up the building of new housing, with more than 1 million homes on land earmarked for development by councils yet to be brought forward by developers for planning permission. Currently the requirement is for the development to begin within three years of permission being granted. This allows developers to land-bank, which means holding land and selling it in the future when its value rises. We need to incentivise developers to build. That is why the Bill would ensure that planning permission for major housing schemes will be granted only on the condition that development begins within two years of planning permission being granted.
This Bill safeguards the interests of my constituents and many of the organisations that are deeply concerned about the Government’s planning proposals. It lays the foundation for a planning system that allows local people to shape their place and deliver good-quality homes that promote health and wellbeing.
Question put.
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 14th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 View all Health and Care Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 359 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 356 / Noes: 219 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The covid-19 pandemic has tested our country like never before, and nowhere more has this been seen than in our health and care system. Everyone delivering health and social care in this country has risen to meet these tests in remarkable new ways. We have seen bold new ways of working, of overcoming bureaucracy and of people working seamlessly across traditional boundaries. New teams were forged, new technologies adopted and new approaches found.
There is no greater example of this than the extraordinary success of our vaccine roll-out, where health and care colleagues have been able to draw on the collective scale and strengths of our Union to deliver one vaccination programme for the whole of the United Kingdom. Today, I can confirm to the House that two thirds of adults have received both jabs against covid-19 one week earlier than planned. It is a remarkable achievement. Everyone working in the NHS and social care can be proud of what they have achieved, and we are all in this House very proud of them.
As we look to the post-pandemic world, we know there is still no shortage of challenges ahead—an ageing population, an increase in people with multiple health conditions and, of course, the chance to embrace the full potential of data and technology.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Jim Shannon
It is just, Secretary of State, because you mentioned the issue I wanted to bring up about people getting older. I spoke to your colleague, the Minister for Health, yesterday and I am appreciative of that—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member really must not refer directly to the Secretary of State; it is through the Chair.
Jim Shannon
Recent statistics show that over 40,000 people under 65 in the UK have dementia, and many more have not been diagnosed as of yet. It would seem that these figures are not addressed in the Health and Care Bill, so can I ask the Secretary of State what more will be done to offer support to those suffering with dementia and Alzheimer’s in the UK through this social services care Bill?
Sajid Javid
I am pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman as he raises a very important issue. In this Bill, as I will come to, one of the central themes is integration. When I come to that, I hope he will see how that integration between NHS and social care will help to deliver a better service for those with dementia.
Everything I refer to—these challenges—are all in addition to the challenges of the pandemic that of course we still face and the elective backlog that we know is going to get worse before it gets better. Meeting the future with confidence relies on learning lessons from the pandemic—what worked and what did not work—and building on a decade of innovation in health and care.
Sometimes the best intentions of the past cannot stop what is right for the future. Bureaucracy can still make sensible decision making harder, silos can stifle work across boundaries and sometimes legislation can get in the way. We have seen how unnecessary rules have meant contracts have needed to be retendered even where high-quality services are being delivered, we have seen the complicated workarounds needed to help the NHS and local government to work together, and we have seen the uncertainty about how to share data across the health and care system. People working in health and social care want the very best for people in their care. That is what they have shown time and again, not least in the way they have embraced integration and innovation to save lives through this pandemic. They want to hold on to the remarkable spirit of integration and innovation, but they want to let go of everything that is holding them back and we want to help them to do it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On that point of bureaucracy, I recently saw the apotheosis of the NHS, where an Anglican church had draped an altar with a flag saying, “O Praise the NHS”. So when we have a new Secretary of State, can we have a really hard-hitting attitude to NHS bureaucracy? We all praise our doctors and nurses, but the fact is that, like any other bureaucracy, it is prone to underperformance, waste and incompetence. There is no harm, as long as we preserve the principle of being free at the point of delivery, in having innovative private sector solutions.
Sajid Javid
I hear what my right hon. Friend has said and I think that, as I progress through my opening remarks, he will like what I have to say about integration and cutting bureaucracy.
All these things that I refer to and all these changes we want to make are exactly what this Health and Care Bill will do. I want to thank the thousands of hard-working staff who, through two years of consultation and engagement, have come forward and told us what they think works and what they think needs to change. In the words of Lord Stevens, chief executive of the NHS, the overwhelming majority of these proposals are changes that the health service has asked for. The Bill supports improvements that are already under way in the NHS. It builds on the recommendations of the NHS’s own long-term plan. It is a product of the NHS, it is for the NHS, and it is supported by the NHS.
I am grateful to all the organisations that have helped to shape these important proposals—everyone from the NHS Confederation to the Local Government Association. I have spent many of my early days in this job talking to them, and they have all told me the same thing, which is that they are ready to take forward the reforms. I want to continue to work with them and to listen to their specific concerns, just as much as I want to listen to the concerns raised by hon. Members across the House and by Members in the other place.
Sajid Javid
With that, I want to listen to this particular hon. Member.
Munira Wilson
The Secretary of State referred to Lord Stevens and what the NHS has asked for in trying to get rid of things that stand in its way. Something that it has not asked for is a massive power grab by the Secretary of State, which is in the Bill and will lead to political interference in day-to-day operational and reconfiguration decisions, which may not always be in the best interests of patients. Why does he think that that is a sensible way forward and something that the NHS wants?
Sajid Javid
Clinical decisions should always be made by those with clinical expertise—I think everyone in the House would agree on that—and that should be independent of any outside interference. The Bill does nothing to alter that. What it does is recognise that the NHS is one of the public’s top priorities. We spend over £140 billion of taxpayers’ money on the NHS, and it is right that there is proper accountability for that spending to Ministers and therefore to the House. I think that most people would welcome that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has talked about people he has consulted, so would he confirm that he has consulted the trade unions, particularly on schedule 2, which says that integrated care boards may appoint employees to address remuneration, pensions and terms and conditions. Can he confirm that that is a departure from Agenda for Change terms?
Sajid Javid
There have been wide-ranging consultations on the Bill, as I mentioned, which have taken place over the past two years. While I cannot say specifically which trade union or which particular organisation has been spoken to, as I was not in the Department at the time, I know that the conversations have been wide ranging.
The Bill is not the limit of our ambitions on the nation’s health. We are also transforming public health; we are bringing the Mental Health Act into the 21st century; and, by the end of this year, we will set out plans putting adult social care on a sustainable footing for the future.
We are also ambitious for our workforce. I have commissioned Health Education England to refresh its strategic framework for health and social care workforce planning. HEE will work in partnership across the sector and gather views from the widest possible range of stakeholders to help us to shape a workforce with the right skills, the right knowledge and the right values for the year ahead.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has set out his plans to introduce a plan for social care by the end of the year, and I know that he is looking for a cross-party solution. In a joint inquiry by two Select Committees—the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee—one of the recommendations was a system with a German-style social care premium. Would that potentially feature in his recommendations, and does he agree that that is a much fairer system than a Dilnot-style system that incentivises people to spend their assets or move them somewhere where they cannot be touched?
Sajid Javid
First, my hon. Friend is right to say that it would be great if all or most Members of this House, and certainly the different parties, could agree on a new system. I look forward to speaking to all hon. Members about what a future social care system could look like. In terms of the detail, I am afraid that he is just going to have to wait a moment longer, but I agree that the work by the Select Committees will, of course, inform our decisions.
I turn in a little more detail to the measures and themes that are captured in the Bill. The first is more integration. We know that different parts of the system want to work together to deliver joined-up services, and we know that, when they do that, it works. We have seen that with the non-statutory integrated care systems in the past few years. They have united hospitals and brought together communities, GPs, mental health services, local authority care and public health, and it works. We recognise that there are limits on how far this can go under the current law, so this Bill will build on the progress of integrated care systems by creating integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships as statutory bodies. England’s 42 ICSs will draw on the expertise of people who know their areas best. They will be able to create joint budgets to shape how we care for people and how we promote a healthy lifestyle. With respect to the specific geographies of the ICSs themselves, as I have said elsewhere, I am willing to listen.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
In passing, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment? I also very much welcome part 4 of the Bill, which introduces the health services safety investigations body. This is a great innovation that was promoted by the Public Administration Committee and scrutinised by the Joint Committee that I chair. Can I just reinforce the points that I know he is now receiving from NHS England with a warning about changing the boundaries of the integrated care systems that are already operating? In Suffolk and north-east Essex, we have a very high-functioning de facto integrated care system operating already. Please will he not change it?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and this may be on the minds of other hon. Members as well. It is important to point out that several factors will be helpful in fostering stronger partnerships between the NHS and local authorities, including the alignment of boundaries. Earlier this year, the former Secretary of State asked NHS England to conduct a boundary review of integrated care systems, to understand the best way forward and the best alignment where local authorities currently have to work with more than one ICS. I have met my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, and I know that hon. Members may have made representations to my predecessor. I have been informed of those, and where the information might not be remembered easily, I am sure we can get hold of some video evidence. [Laughter.] I want to thank all hon. Members for their input into this, and I stress that no final decisions have yet been made on the boundary review.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just a reminder that interventions need to be short and to the point, because there is a lot of pressure on time in this debate.
Tim Farron
My point is about boundaries. Lancashire and south Cumbria have a perfectly reasonable boundary, but does the Secretary of State agree that there is concern that, because most rural communities are attached to bigger, more populated urban ones, that can lead to an imbalance in decisions? One of the proposals that our community faces is that the Preston and Lancaster hospitals could be replaced by a single super-hospital somewhere in the middle. HIP2—the health infrastructure plan 2—is a good thing, but that would be very bad thing, because it would mean that people in south Cumbria could have a two-hour round trip just to get to A&E. Will he intervene and ensure that any proposals under HIP2 that undermine access to healthcare in rural communities are taken off the table?
Sajid Javid
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. As I have said, no final decisions have been made, but if he would like a meeting with a Health Minister, we can arrange that so that the matter can be discussed further.
I am also very grateful to another of my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), first for his leadership of the Health Committee, whose valuable report and recommendations we have taken on board, and secondly for his tireless dedication to the cause of patient safety, which sees its culmination in the Bill’s creation of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. We must continue, in his words, that quiet revolution in patient safety. I have asked my officials to consider whether the Care Quality Commission could look broadly across the integrated care systems in reviewing the way in which local authorities and providers of health, public health and social care services are working together to deliver safe, high-quality integrated care to the public.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks of patient safety. May I ask him why the Bill contains none of Sir Bruce Keogh‘s recommendations on the cosmetic surgery industry, which are now 10 years old? In response to questions that I have asked, Ministers keep saying that the recommendations are going to be implemented. Could this not be an opportunity to improve patient safety in that area?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. There are issues surrounding the cosmetic surgery industry, and I know that he has spoken eloquently about them in the House before. I do not necessarily agree that this Bill has to be the vehicle for any change, but if he wishes to discuss the matter further, I should be happy to meet him in due course, because it is important and it does require a fresh look.
Whenever the NHS is subject to change, it is tempting for some, who should actually know better, to claim that it is the beginning of the end of public provision. We know that that is complete nonsense, and they know it is nonsense, but they say it anyway. So let me very clear: our integrated care boards will be made up of public sector bodies and those with a social purpose. They will not be driven by any private interests, and will constantly make use of the most innovative potential of non-NHS bodies.
The spirit of this Bill is about holding on to what is best about the NHS and removing what is holding it back. That is something that we all want, and I am looking forward to a mature debate—[Laughter.] Perhaps that is too much to ask in this Chamber with this Opposition Front Bench, but I hope for, and I think the public expect, a mature debate on the Bill and on how we can achieve these sensible changes together.
In that spirit, the second theme of the Bill is cutting bureaucracy. As we have been tested during these past months, we have looked at the rules and regulations through new eyes. It has become increasingly clear which of them are the cornerstone of safe, high-quality care, and which are stifling innovation and damaging morale. It is that second group of rules and regulations that the Bill strips away, removing the existing procurement regime and improving the way in which healthcare services are arranged. Yes, this is about how we deliver better value for the taxpayer, but fundamentally it is about how we can free up NHS colleagues to deliver better care. We know that patients are better served when experts are free to innovate unencumbered by unnecessary bureaucratic processes. That is why the Bill will repeal section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, giving the NHS the flexibility for which it has been asking. I know that this is a point of agreement with the Labour party—
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
We said it 10 years ago.
Sajid Javid
The Labour party said it not just 10 years ago but in 2015, 2017 and 2019—in all those manifestos—so I am sure that its members agree with this direction. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. If Members want to intervene, let me say to them that the Secretary of State has been very generous in giving way, but just shouting at him is not working.
Sajid Javid
They are excited, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I understand that. Let me excite them much more.
The third theme of the Bill is greater accountability. We have never seen so clearly as we have in the past 16 months how critical the health of our constituents is for the House. The Government of the day always work hand in hand with the NHS to deliver that priority. That is what people would expect from a responsible Government. People also rightly expect there to be clear lines of accountability for how this priority is delivered. Accountability is the foundation of our democracy, and on that I hope we all agree.
On the nation’s greatest priority, our health, this Bill sets out clear lines of accountability to the people we all serve. The Bill simplifies what has been a complex structure, bringing the three different bodies that oversee the NHS into just one, as NHS England. NHS England will continue to have clinical day-to-day operational independence, but it is right that the NHS must be accountable to Ministers, and Ministers must be accountable to Parliament, where we are all accountable to the people we serve.
Naturally, that accountability will extend to these integrated care systems. The right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) is on the record, in an interview with the Health Service Journal in December 2019, as saying that he agrees with the principle of the legislative changes that had been put forward by the NHS for “democratically accountable” ICSs. He cannot have any objection to this point. We will see what he has to say from the Dispatch Box.
I hope we can all agree that this is a sensible and pragmatic step. Let me quote once more:
“We will reinstate the powers of the Secretary of State for Health to have overall responsibility for the NHS.”
Those are not my words but the words of the 2017 Labour manifesto. I look forward to working with the shadow Health Secretary on this and other aspects of the Bill, and I urge him to set aside petty party politics and point scoring and do what the NHS wants him to do, which is to back this Bill.
Before I finish my opening remarks, I turn to the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition Members. What is claimed by the reasoned amendment is entirely wrong. This is exactly the right time for these reforms. The response to covid-19 has quickened the pace of collaboration across health and social care, showing what we can do when we all work together, when we adopt new technology and when we set aside bureaucratic rules. The pandemic has also brought home the importance of preventing ill health in the first place. The Bill lays the framework to achieve all that.
More than that, this Bill is what the NHS has been asking for. It builds on the NHS’s long-term plan and the work the NHS has already started to do voluntarily. We have invested record sums in the NHS, both before and, of course, during this pandemic, and we will continue to do so.
The systems are telling us that they are ready, that they want us to go ahead with this Bill. They do not want to see any delay, which is why this is important work for all of us. Hopefully Parliament can deliver what the NHS is asking for.
The unprecedented challenges of the pandemic have only deepened our affection for the NHS, and it has reinforced the noble idea that the NHS is there for all of us when we need it. I started learning about the NHS from a very early age when I used to go to check-ups with my mum and translate for her. It was there for her, it has been there for me, it has been there for my family, it has been there for my children and it has been there for all of us and our constituents.
Even in this fast-changing world, with the new and evolving threats to our health, the founding principles of the NHS are as true today as they ever were. It is our responsibility to build on this incredible inheritance. Our NHS is the envy of the world, so it is right that this Government should work across health and care to shape a system that is truly fit for the future. Our colleagues in health and social care have achieved extraordinary things in the most extraordinary times, and we in this place must give them the firm foundations they need to build back better in the years that lie ahead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I bring in the shadow Secretary of State, I remind hon. Members that there will be an immediate three-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. There is a countdown clock for those in the Chamber, and for those participating virtually, there will be a clock on the screens.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Health and Care Bill, notwithstanding the need for a plan for greater integration between health services and social care services and for restrictions on junk food advertising to improve population health outcomes, because the Bill represents a top down reorganisation in a pandemic leading to a loss of local accountability, fails to reform social care, allows further outsourcing permitting the private sector to sit on local boards and fails to reinstate the NHS as the default provider, fails to introduce a plan to bring down waiting lists for routine NHS treatment or tackle the growing backlog of care, fails to put forward plans to increase the size of the NHS workforce and see them better supported, and fails to put forward a plan that would give the NHS the resources it needs to invest in modern equipment, repair the crumbling NHS estate or ensure comprehensive, quality healthcare.”
Well, the Secretary of State talked a lot, but he did not say very much. Look at the context of where we are. Yesterday, we recorded 36,000 covid infections. Hospital admissions have increased to over 500 a day, up 50% in a week. Waiting lists are at the highest level on record, currently at 5.3 million. Some 336,733 people have been waiting over a year for treatment, over 76,583 people are waiting over 18 months, and over 7,000 people are waiting over two years. Some 25,889 people are waiting more than two weeks from urgent referral to a first consultant appointment for cancer. Emergency care is grappling with some of the highest summer demands ever seen. Two hundred and fifty thousand people are waiting for social care. NHS staff are exhausted, facing burnout. We went into this pandemic with 100,000 vacancies across the NHS and a further 112,000 vacancies across social care.
The answer from the Secretary of State is to embark on a top-down reorganisation when we are not even through the pandemic—a reorganisation that will not deliver the integration needed, because reforms to social care are delayed again; a reorganisation that will not deliver more care but in fact, in periods of stretched health funding, could well deliver less care; and a reorganisation that is, in effect, a Trojan horse to hide a power grab by the Secretary of State.
Let us be clear why this reorganisation is taking place. The Government have come forward with this Bill because of the mess of the last reorganisation—the mess that the Secretary of State supported and voted for, and the mess that he spoke out for in this House, saying that it would modernise the NHS and that the
“concept of GP commissioning has been widely supported by politicians from all parties for many years. May I urge my right hon. Friend to keep putting patients first by increasing GP involvement in the NHS?”—[Official Report, 4 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 773.]
Why, if he believed that then, has he U-turned now? And it was a mess that we warned of. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who opposed that Bill in this House, warned the Government that it would increase bureaucracy and increase the fragmentation that the Secretary of State has just complained about from the Dispatch Box.
Ministers said that that reorganisation under Lord Lansley would reduce bureaucracy, and Back Benchers told us that it would reduce bureaucracy, but what ended up happening? Billions were wasted and thousands of NHS staff were made redundant. That was the Government’s priority then, and now they are asking us to clean up their mess today. They also told us that that reorganisation would improve cancer survival rates, and where are we today? We are still lagging behind other countries on cancer survival rates. Perhaps the Secretary of State could have come to the Dispatch Box and apologised for that Lansley reorganisation and 10 wasted years.
The Secretary of State talked about NHS leaders, but the truth is that NHS leaders asked for a simple Bill to get rid of the worst of the Lansley restructuring and instead re-embed a sense of equity, collaboration and social justice in our NHS structures. That is not what this Bill is. Of course, the Secretary of State secretly agrees with me. According to The Times, he wrote to the Prime Minister saying that there were “significant areas of contention” that were yet to be resolved with the Bill, and that he wanted to delay it. The Secretary of State was only back five minutes and already Downing Street was overruling him. When it overrules him on his choice of spin doctors, he walks; when it overrules him on the future of the NHS, he puts his career first and stays in the Cabinet.
I listened carefully to the case made by the Secretary of State. He talked of the need for greater integration between health and social care and the need to provide better co-ordinated care, and he referred to an ageing population.
To be frank, that was a speech that Health Secretaries and their predecessor Social Services Secretaries have been making more or less since 1968, when Richard Crossman proposed the first set of NHS reorganisations. Indeed, there were echoes of the Secretary of State’s speech in that made by his predecessor Keith Joseph, when he came to this House in 1972 to set up the area health authorities, bringing together hospitals and community care and working more closely with local authorities because we needed seamless care. Those authorities were of such a size that, within a year, they were rearranged again into district health authorities. Given the size of some of the integrated care systems that the Secretary of State is proposing, I suspect that the seeds of the next reorganisation are being sown today.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State told the House that his
“three pressing priorities for these critical…months”
were
“getting us…out of this pandemic…busting the backlog”
of non-covid care, and
“putting social care on a sustainable footing for the future.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 163.]
But absent from his speech was any credible explanation of how this reorganisation will meet his objectives that he outlined to the House yesterday. In fact, in the last 30 years, we have seen around 20 reorganisations of the NHS. Have any of them delivered the outcomes that Health Secretaries have promised from the Dispatch Box? Well, not according to analysis in The BMJ, which observes:
“Past reorganisations have delivered little benefit”.
Why should this one be any different?
The question for me is: how will the 85-year-old with multiple care needs experience better whole-person care as a result of the restructuring that the Secretary of State is embarking upon? How will waiting times for elective surgery for cancer and mental health be improved by this reorganisation? How will health inequalities that have widened and life expectancy advances that have stalled be corrected by this reorganisation? To those questions, the Secretary of State had no answer today: the Bill fails those tests because it is a badly drafted Bill and could in fact even worsen health outcomes.
Let me outline our specific concerns. On the proposed integrated care boards, the Bill collapses the remaining 100 or so clinical commissioning groups into 32 integrated care systems differing in geographical size and with some covering populations up to 3 million or 4 million. In some parts of the country, the ICSs are not based on the NHS agreed boundaries, but currently on centrally drawn-up boundaries for political reasons. We know that Cheshire will be combined with Merseyside. Glossop is cut off from Greater Manchester and allocated to Derbyshire. Frimley is split up, leading the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), to complain in an Adjournment debate recently:
“Do not break up Frimley ICS. Just for once, let common sense prevail.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2021; Vol. 698, c. 238.]
These boundaries and the way in which they were proposed by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), prompted NHS Providers to warn that the disruption could lead to
“a worsening of patient care”.
And then, of course, we have the design of the integrated care system, split across two committees—a partnership board containing people from local authorities, the third sector and others, and then an NHS board responsible for spending the money, for commissioning. The Secretary of State has moved away from GP commissioning, of course; he wants the NHS board to commission now. Those two boards will probably have different chairs, but the NHS board only has to have “regard” to the partnership board strategy. Nor is it clear how local authority seats—the one local authority seat—will be decided when they cover more than one council and possibly even councils of different political persuasions, so we will see how a consensus can be built then.
Other important voices are left out. Mental illness accounts for roughly a quarter of the total burden of illness, yet there is no guarantee that mental health providers will get the seats on these boards, when we know that mental health services are under pressure and the Secretary of State tells us that the mental health backlog is one of his personal priorities. The pandemic has also reminded us that the health and wellbeing of our community is not just in the hands of large hospitals or general practice. It is also in the hands of our directors of public health, who have shown exceptional local leadership throughout this crisis, standing on the shoulders of their forebears, who in the past confronted diseases such as cholera, smallpox and diphtheria. Test and Trace would have been far safer in their hands from the outset, by the way, and what is their reward? They are sidelined. Public health, again, should be properly represented on the NHS boards and we will table amendments to that effect.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just about their being sidelined; it is actually about the budgets for public health, which have been pushed off into the autumn? If the consultation paper that went out last year is anything to go by, County Durham would lose 19% of its budget. How can we effect these changes without its being divorced from what will be provided in terms of cash?
Jonathan Ashworth
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to the financial flows in a few moments. But how on earth can we have a triple aim of trying to improve health outcomes for a population and not even give public health a voice and a seat on the decision-making body that decides health plans for an area?
The Secretary of State talks about integrating health and social care. There is no seat for directors of adult social services on these committees, either. And what about patients? Patients were not mentioned very often by the Secretary of State in his speech. Patients will always come first for the Opposition. They have no mandated institutional representation, either—no guaranteed patient voice—so we have yet another reorganisation of the NHS whereby patients are treated like ghosts in the machine. It is utterly unacceptable. This is fragmentation, not integration, with a continued sidelining of social care.
There is a loss of local accountability as well, because there is no explicit requirement that the boards meet in public or publish their board papers. Although NHS England has stated that that is its preference, it is not required; nor is there any commitment, despite the wide geographical spread of some ICSs, for meetings to be made accessible online. But, of course, the White Paper did indicate that the independent sector could have a seat on an ICS, and the explanatory notes to the Bill state that
“local areas will have the flexibility to determine any further representation.”
Kevin Hollinrake
The right hon. Gentleman talks about solutions to social care. Will he come on to his own solutions to social care? Will they potentially include the recommendations of the Select Committees about that German-style social care premium—recommendations made by members of his own party who were elected by his party to serve on those Committees? Is that something that he is now willing to explore? He has ruled it out time and again on the Floor of the House.
Jonathan Ashworth
I have. The hon. Gentleman is a dogged advocate for that proposal for social care, and he is quite right: he always raises it with me. I am unpersuaded but I am more than happy to sit down with the Secretary of State and with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West to discuss a solution to social care. We keep being told that there are going to be cross-party talks, but I think I missed the Zoom link, because they have not happened so far.
As I was saying, these committees do permit a seat, if the committees want it, for the independent sector. In Bath, in Somerset, we have seen Virgin Care get a seat on the shadow ICS. The Opposition think that is unacceptable and we shall table amendments to prohibit it.
I welcome the removal of the section 75 competition and procurement rules, finally scraping the remnants of the Lansley competition rules off the boots of the NHS. We did warn him and others that this compulsory competitive tendering would lead to billions going to the private sector, would be wasteful and bureaucratic, and would be distracting—and it even led to the NHS getting sued by Virgin Care when it did not win a contract. But this is not the end of contracting with the private sector. Without clauses to make the NHS the default provider, it would be possible for ICBs to award and extend contracts for healthcare services of unlimited value without advertising, including to private companies. Given the past year, when huge multibillion-pound contracts have been handed out for duff personal protective equipment and testing, we naturally have concerns about that and will seek safeguards in Committee. We are worried about further cronyism.
We are particularly concerned about the Bill because of the power grab clauses for the Secretary of State. He is creating 138 new powers, including seven allowing him in effect to rewrite the law through secondary legislation, to transfer functions between arm’s length bodies without any proper scrutiny. He has not explained why he needs these powers or given any guidance on how he expects to use them. These powers also include a requirement that Ministers be informed of every single service change, every single reconfiguration, and the Secretary of State will then decide whether or not to call them in for ministerial decision. Are you sure you want that power, Secretary of State?
The Government have gone from wanting to liberate the NHS under Lansley to now listening out for the clang of every dropped bedpan echoing through Whitehall. This is not a plan for service modernisation; it is a “Back to the Future” plan and it will mean more inertia. Instead of powers to interfere at every level, resetting the mandate for the NHS within years, we instead would want the duties on the Health Secretary, and therefore on the 42 ICSs to which he delegates those responsibilities, to continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service, as per the National Health Service Act 2006, to be fully reinstated and made explicit.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
As ever, I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. If this is the “Back to the Future” Bill, presumably it puts right what once went wrong. Does he support the clauses on foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar, and the watershed proposals for advertising?
Jonathan Ashworth
Yes, although I am disappointed that they are in this particular Bill. I think they should be part of a stand-alone Bill. In my concluding remarks, I will make a point or two about other public health interventions, which I imagine and hope that the hon. Member, as a great champion of public health, would support.
It is crucial that the Secretary of State’s duty to provide comprehensive healthcare is reinstated, rather than the duty to meddle in the NHS at any time he wants, because there is a lack of clarity about how the funding flows work in this system. The talk is of moving to capitated budgets for an area to provide holistic care to meet the complicated care needs of individual. But when waiting lists are increasing at the current rate, and when cancer waits and mental health referrals are going up, how is an area going to fund the episodic care for each unit of extra care that is needed—often care that is expensive and more complicated because it needs to be done in the acute sector?
We have worries. Clauses 21 to 24 on the financial duties on ICS boards, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts are alarming, because they put in place a duty to ensure financial balance across the ICS area, but there is no clarification of how that balance should be achieved and enforced. Local health budgets have been stretched to breaking point after years of underfunding, so what does this duty mean for existing deficits? At the moment, trusts have a combined deficit of £910 million. King’s has a deficit of £111 million. Worcestershire has a deficit of £81 million. University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust has a deficit of £80 million. Will the ICBs need to fill this £900 million black hole before they are even up and running How exactly will trust and ICS board deficits be dealt with at the end of each financial year?
This could well be a return to the days that we saw in the ’80s, which some Members in the House may recall, when health authorities would close beds and put off paying bills from January onwards in order to hit financial balance. If health authorities have to hit this financial balance year by year, will it result in a postcode lottery of more rationing and an even longer list of treatments being removed from the NHS through the decisions of ICBs because they have to hit balance, effectively forcing patients either to go private or go without? I hope that the Minister, in summing up, can clarify what the situation will be.
If a set of providers, trusts and an ICB feel that the financial settlement they have been given by NHS England will not allow them to deliver the levels of care to bring down the waiting lists, which the Secretary of State said is one of his top priorities, or to improve mental health outcomes, which he has also said is one of his top priorities, what is their appeal process? How will the arbitration process work on an area’s financial settlement under the current plans to bring together NHS England and NHS Improvement, not split them out?
The Bill is spun as an attempt to integrate health and social care, but there is nothing in it actually to integrate health and social care, because there is nothing in it to fix social care. If it is about integrating health and social care, where is the long-promised Bill to reform social care? The Bill will repeal provisions in the Care Act 2014 that require patients to be assessed for their social care needs before they are discharged from hospital. Without long-term funding in place, that could mean a patient being sent home, left out without support and waiting for an assessment. Will the Secretary of State, or the Minister who responds to the debate, guarantee that that will not be the case? Will they put in place the necessary funding alongside the Bill?
A number of royal colleges and health bodies have said today that the biggest challenge facing the NHS is workforce. The Bill proposes a duty on the Secretary of State to report on workforce once every five years. That is simply not good enough. We need a solution to workforce now; we need a solution to recruitment now; staff need a fair pay rise now; we need more investment in training and professional development budgets now; and we need safe staffing legislation now. We will therefore look to amend the Bill, hopefully on a cross-party basis and perhaps working with others who put forward proposals to improve the workforce sections of the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) asked the Secretary of State, what does the Bill mean for “Agenda for Change”? The Bill suggests that an integrated care system will be able to change “Agenda for Change” terms; we disagree with that.
Finally, on public health, the Bill introduces restrictions on the advertising of less healthy food and drink. We welcome this step—it, too, was in our 2017 manifesto, which the Secretary of State has been reading—but we would go further. Why can we not have more restrictions on the advertising of unhealthy food around schools? Our public health crisis is about not just obesity but smoking and alcohol, so why are there no provisions in the Bill on smoking services and to ensure alcohol calorie labelling? We will table amendments on those issues in Committee.
This is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. Will the person with learning difficulties or the older person who needs social care experience improved care? No. Will social care be brought back in from the wilderness? No. Will the cancer backlog be tackled more effectively? No. Will health inequalities be narrowed? No. Will parity of esteem for mental health be delivered? No.
Instead of this being a simple Bill to end competition and foster local collaboration, NHS staff will be left trying to second-guess where the Secretary of State will interfere next in the safe running of their local NHS with his in-year changing mandate. The rules on funding could result in more rationing and cuts, so we cannot possibly support the Bill. We have championed integrated care for many years, but the Bill does not deliver it and we urge the House to accept our reasoned amendment.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
To reorganise the NHS as one of your first acts as Health Secretary is what Sir Humphrey would describe as brave. I support this Bill, because it contains changes that the NHS has asked for. I take the Secretary of State at his word that there is more to come on social care, and he has said that he will pursue the idea of independent safety and quality inspections of the new integrated care systems to make sure that they are outward facing and focused on the needs of patients.
When it comes to the biggest challenge facing the NHS today, which is workforce gaps, the Bill says little or nothing. Independent forecasts say today that we are currently short of 400 psychiatrists; 1,400 anaesthetists; 2,000 radiologists; 2,000 midwives; 2,000 to 2,500 emergency care consultants; and 2,500 GPs. We have more nurses but we are short of learning disability, mental health and community nurses.
Steve Brine
It is unquestionable that we have a challenge with the GP workforce. It is about numbers, yes, but does my right hon. Friend agree that constituents have a big challenge with access to general practice? We currently do not have the right balance between telemedicine and in-person medicine.
Jeremy Hunt
There is a big issue, and my hon. Friend is aware from his time at the Department of Health that its root cause is capacity in the system. These capacity issues taken together are why the Health Foundation says that, in just over a decade, we risk a workforce gap in the NHS of about half a million people. That is why this is such a big issue. I urge the Secretary of State to think about that during the Bill’s passage.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is also the case for the rehabilitation services used by stroke victims? There is a vital link between occupational therapists and physios, but we do not have the proper workforce in place for at-home care after a stroke.
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These issues are about not just doctors but all associated health professionals, allied health professionals and indeed the social care workforce. It is important to note that they predate the pandemic. That is why, when I was doing the job of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I set up five new medical schools and increased the number of doctor, nurse and midwife training places by a quarter, but we need to go further.
When the number of clinicians we train is decided by haggling between the Department of Health and the Treasury in a spending round, there is always the risk that it will be eclipsed by more short-term considerations. The truth is that we have a short-term emergency with workforce burnout, so I urge my right hon. Friend to look at the simple and sensible solution proposed by the Health Foundation and all the royal colleges in The Times today to legislate for Health Education England to have a statutory responsibility to publish annual independent workforce projections across the health and care system for the next five, 10, 15 and 20 years. That would show how many training places are needed, which would start to tackle this problem and the obscenity of spending £6 billion every year on locum doctors and agency workers. That cannot be the best use of funds.
Frontline health and care workers are exhausted. They know that there is not an instant solution, because they know it takes three years to train a nurse and seven years to train a doctor, but we can at least give them the reassurance that there is a long-term plan in place. That is not in the Bill, but it needs to be. Given the dedication that we have seen from health and care staff over the last year, it is the very least that we owe them.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 was what got me involved in politics, as I followed the Lansley proposals in sheer disbelief that anyone could think that breaking the NHS in England into pieces and making them compete with each other would somehow improve patient care. So here we are, less than a decade on, and the Government are having to unpick some of the worst aspects of their legislation, which drove competition instead of collaboration and led to the fragmentation of the NHS in England.
Many will be glad to see the back of section 75, which forced services to be put out to tender to commercial companies, but the Government’s covid response does not exactly suggest that they are any less keen on outsourcing. In the last year, we have seen the establishment of parallel systems of laboratories and contact tracing instead of investment in the expansion of NHS labs and public health teams. Health and care services need collaboration and integration with the patient and their family at the centre. That was key to the NHS requests that led to the Bill.
This is obviously a bit of a kitchen sink Bill, with many disparate components. The main aim is meant to be removing some of the barriers to local collaboration, and to some extent it will do that. Achieving integration, however, will still depend on the establishment of a culture of genuine co-operation within integrated care systems and partnerships. They should be statutory public bodies focused on how to provide the best services to their local population, including working with local government to provide social care and tackle the social determinants of health. Instead, private companies can sit on the integrated care partnership boards, as is the case with Virgin Care in Bath, Somerset, and could influence the commissioning of services for which they are hoping to win contracts. It is hard to see how this is anything other than a blatant conflict of interest and suggests that private providers are moving higher up the ladder and could exert influence on a larger scale.
One issue is transparency, as private companies hide behind commercial confidentiality and do not publish accounts of how they have spent public money. Instead of taking the opportunity to return to a publicly funded and delivered health service, as we are lucky enough to have in Scotland, the purchaser-provider split remains and the principle of commissioning and procurement means that financial competition continues. The administrative costs of such transactional systems waste funding that would be better spent on direct clinical care. Unfortunately, the Government are still wedded to the flawed idea that financial competition drives up quality, yet there is no evidence of that. Indeed, financial competition can mean that, when a service starts to struggle, the loss of funding makes its failure become inevitable. It is actually a relentless focus on safety, clinical audit and peer review that can drive improvement in the quality of patient care.
Thanks to devolution, our NHS was spared this destructive experimentation in marketisation, but we inherited a system of competing hospital and primary care trusts, which were then abolished and replaced with statutory public health boards. These are funded to deliver primary, community and hospital care to the population of their geographical area, and work with local authorities on integrated joint boards to deliver public health and social care to the same population.
The long-term Scottish policy of integration was one of three aspects of our healthcare system that was praised in the Nuffield Trust report, “Learning from Scotland’s NHS” that it considered the NHS in England might want to look at. The other two aspects were quality improvement and patient safety. I was honoured to lead the development of the Scottish breast cancer standards in 2000, and, through our yearly audit and peer review, saw outcomes in all units improve in the following years. We now have regular prospective audits of clinical care in 19 of the most common cancers, as well as standards in a broad range of medical conditions and services as diverse as diabetic retinopathy, bowel screening and forensic medical services.
In contrast, many clinical outcome audits have disappeared in England, and publication of the “Getting it Right First Time” audit into breast cancer services has been held back since December 2019. The whole point of such audits is to identify weaknesses and drive clinical improvement. They should not be delayed for political reasons, because they highlight issues that need to be tackled.
With regard to patient safety, I am very glad to see the proposal for the Health Service Safety Investigations Body make it into the Bill after a four-year delay. The agency will take a similar approach to that used in air accident investigations and share the learning from significant healthcare failures to try to prevent similar episodes in the future. Having been on the pre-legislative Committee, it will be interesting to see how that innovative system evolves.
However, I find it surprising that more has not been taken from Scotland’s national Patient Safety Programme, which promotes a whole-team approach to patient safety to try to prevent incidents from happening in the first place. I remember it being introduced to surgical theatres in 2008 and it reduced post-operative mortality by over a third within two years. It has been extended to almost every division of our health service, leading to a significant reduction in standardised hospital mortality and morbidity, such as sepsis or pressure sores. A key principle at the core of both the patient safety and quality improvement programmes has been the involvement of frontline staff and patients in their design and development. I am sure that the Secretary of State or Health Ministers would be made very welcome by me and my colleagues in the Scottish Government should they wish to visit Scotland to see the programmes in action.
Several clauses of the Bill apply to the devolved nations, but although some relate to traditionally reserved issues such as professional regulation, others are less clear. There is growing concern in Scotland and Wales about how this Government are using the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to undermine devolution and about how the data-gathering or procurement aspects of the Bill might be widened to apply to our health services.
In 2015, NHS England’s five year forward view highlighted the critical dependence of the NHS on a well-functioning and resilient social care sector. That is still the gaping hole in this legislation. With the funding gap in England now between £8 billion and £10 billion a year, a failure to properly fund social care will undermine the whole integration agenda, as providers are unlikely to be willing to share financial risk with a woefully underfunded service.
Not only has the pandemic highlighted the vulnerability of the social care sector, particularly care homes, but it has brought home the important role played by care staff. The Feeley review for the Scottish Government proposes the development of caring as a profession and proposes taking a human rights approach to social care, valuing it as enabling participation in society rather than looking on care support always as a burden. At the 2019 election, the Prime Minister boasted that he had a fully prepared social care plan, but it has yet to see the light of day. It is hard to see how any integration agenda will succeed without it.
Lord Stevens’s plan stressed the importance of preventive public health to reduce the burden on the NHS, but public health budgets in England have been slashed over the past five years. While policies on tackling obesity are welcome, they are quite narrow and there is little recognition of the role that food poverty plays. Healthy foods are often more expensive. Indeed, poverty is the biggest single driver of ill health. With another decade of Tory austerity due to begin with the cuts to universal credit in September, there is little chance of improving health and wellbeing, particularly among the most disadvantaged.
Wellbeing is not about healthcare, and it is more than just an absence of physical or mental illness. Developing a wellbeing economy would require a total change in philosophy from this Government—and there is little sign that they are interested in taking up the challenge.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I want to make three quick points in my short contribution today.
The NHS is a great institution because it has wonderful, dedicated and selfless people working in it. That was recognised by the Department in the people plan, on which clause 33 builds. I had wanted to make other comments about the workforce but, frankly, they have made more ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). I support exactly what he said. I encourage the Minister to listen to his comments about the need for a long-term plan and perhaps for the duty to be shortened in time, as well as about Health Education England. All my right hon. Friend’s comments were admirably sensible, as we have come to expect.
I welcome the new powers of direction, and I want to counter some of the criticism in the House about them. The newly merged NHS England and NHS Improvement have a range of new functions. Despite what the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), said, it is clear that the powers of direction will apply only if they are in the public interest and if they relate to the functions. Given the new scope and scale of those functions, it seems right that accountability—and possibilities for the accountability needed in the future—be put in place.
Likewise, I encourage the Secretary of State not to listen to criticisms of political expediency and political interference with respect to reconfiguration. All too often, it is not political expediency but political acrimony that trumps political need. All too often, reconfiguration that would benefit our constituents and the health of this nation is held up. Far from meaning that every bedpan in the NHS will be looked at, reconfiguration is a sensible move. Quite rightly, the reconsideration will still be done by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, and it is right that if the Secretary of State has the chance to look at those reconfigurations earlier, it should too. I strongly encourage my right hon. Friend to ignore the criticism and to proceed with that power.
My third point is on the prevention aspect of the Bill, which I warmly welcome. Obesity is a UK-wide health crisis. More than 60% of adults in the United Kingdom are above a healthy weight. Some of the measures may well be discussed in Committee, and there may well be some changes in Committee, but the thrust of the measures is correct. We in this country need to recognise that health outcomes and inequalities are affected by not tackling prevention. The Bill starts that; I warmly welcome it, and I will be happy to support it.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
I find it very worrying that the Government are choosing to reorganise the NHS during the third wave of the pandemic—a time of exhausted staff and huge pressure. The health service has been stretched to its absolute limits and the road back will be long and difficult. The NHS is scrambling to catch up, yet amid the chaos, the Government want to completely restructure it. Although I support the integration of healthcare and social care, that is not what the proposed integrated care boards and partnerships will achieve.
I am especially concerned that the Bill removes the duty to provide secondary care services, permits the deregulation of all health professions and encourages hospitals to discharge patients prematurely without the assessment of their care needs. In some areas, commissioning responsibilities are up for grabs or even promised to local authorities, which believe they can just use them without the benefit of NHS commissioning experience. There is no doubt that patients and staff will suffer amid the organisational chaos.
I am delighted that this appears to be the end of the disastrous competition of the Lansley Bill, but I doubt we can trust that the end of tendering will mean the end of privatisation. It could actually give rise to privatisation that is unregulated by the tendering process. The private contracts awarded in my constituency have been nothing short of a disaster. To be told that the culprit can have a voice in future decision making is simply unacceptable. How can we allow self-interested, profit-motivated company stakeholders to influence decisions that are supposed to be made with one person in mind—the patient? Remember, it is all about the patient.
I am very concerned about boundaries and the democratic deficit that they will throw up in my constituency. Primary care will be in the Lancashire integrated care system, while acute services will be in the Cheshire-Mersey ICS. My constituents will not be at the table at any point when their hospital services are discussed, as they are not in the Cheshire-Mersey footprint, although their hospitals are—so much for the primacy of place that everybody talks about.
This is a disaster waiting to happen. Many MPs voted for the Lansley Bill with deep and great misgivings. They were right then—the Bill is testimony to that. I implore them not to make the same mistake now.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Health Bills, rightly, do not come around too often, so when they do there needs to be good reason. My conclusion, from the necessary establishment of integrated care systems to the so-called triple aim, the removal of the competition aspect and the new power of direction, is that there is good reason for legislation at this time. This is obviously a vast Bill, but because Health Bills do not come around very often, it is understandable that colleagues and officials will use the opportunity to give legislative cover to things that they have been working on for a long time. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch is a very welcome example of that.
I want to focus on workforce and then on primary care, and in doing so I refer the House to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On workforce, I remember publishing the cancer strategy in 2018. The issue then was not our ambition but having the cancer workforce to meet it. Obviously, the chances of surviving cancer have improved significantly in recent years. There are many reasons for that, but detecting 75% of cancers at stage 1 or early stage, which must happen, needs the radiographers in post and demands an endoscopy workforce that can properly execute the FIT screening for the bowel cancer programme, as one example.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about the necessary workforce in the NHS. Does he agree that if we were perhaps to offer indefinite leave to remain to the many thousands of frontline NHS workers in all departments who are here on visas and have worked hard through this pandemic, we would help to fill the gap that so desperately needs closing?
Steve Brine
The hon. Lady makes a sensible point. There is obviously a process in place whereby that can happen, but if she is asking whether I agree with a liberal immigration policy to help our health service, then absolutely, yes I do. Addressing the cancer workforce and the wider NHS staffing picture is not an omission from the Bill—we cannot legislate staff shortages out of existence—but if we do not address that issue and face up to our long-term structural gaps, many of the reforms around tackling the backlog and building back better will not amount to a row of beans.
Jeremy Hunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the extraordinary work he did when he was a Minister on early diagnosis of cancer. Is he aware that the Health and Social Care Committee has just opened an inquiry—we had our opening session yesterday—into that issue, and into how we can get the right workforce in place to deal with those important matters?
Steve Brine
I was aware of that, and I am pleased to hear it. The Select Committee will soon have Cally Palmer before it—she is the national cancer director and one of the best in the business—and I look forward to following what she says. In advance of the comprehensive spending review, the Bill should include a requirement on the Government to publish modelling of the future supply of the entire healthcare workforce.
On primary care, I welcome the formal creation of integrated care systems, but we need them to realise their potential, and to do so fast. If they are going to work, general practice needs to embrace the wider primary care family, which means finally to recognise the potential of community pharmacy, ophthalmology and dental services as vehicles of prevention as much as of treatment.
Finally, if we move upstream of the Bill, what we do must be about prevention. We hear talk this weekend of a waiting list touching 13 million people. Let us tackle that for sure, but let us also get behind the food and drink clauses in part 5, and think about the future and our children as much as about the present. Several years ago I was fortunate to write up the high fat, sugar and/or salt proposals as part of chapter 2 of the child obesity plan, and I am pleased that the 9 pm watershed is legislated for in the Bill. I pay tribute to Jamie Oliver and his Bite Back 2030 campaign, and the young people involved with that, as well as to Cancer Research UK for its support. I realise that not everyone on these Benches, or perhaps outside, supports that move, and I agree that it will have little impact if that is its grand sum. Ministers need to take the tackling obesity strategy that was published last year, implement it all, and then go again.
I welcome the clauses on the fluoridation of water supplies. Let us stop debating whether we do that and —to borrow a phrase—follow the science.
In conclusion, the Bill is worthy of support on Second Reading. There will be an awful lot of work to do in Committee and the other place, but I will certainly support it this evening.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Our NHS is built on the values that Britain holds dear: each of us is equal, and we will be treated on the basis of our need, never on our ability to pay. It is part of our national heritage, so much so that even the Tories have to pretend that they believe in its founding principles. Those are principles of fairness for all, and from each according to their means, to each according to their needs. Those are the values that led to the creation of the Labour party over a century ago. If the Tories hold those values so dear, why have they failed to apply them everywhere else?
This is the Tory Government who left children without food during the school holidays, and who are failing to pay for children to catch up with their education. They are cutting £20 from universal credit for the poorest households in the country. Why did we have 11 years of austerity, when billions were taken from public services, hitting the poorest communities hardest? There was no sign of levelling up there.
In the past 40 years our NHS has come under threat on two occasions: first during the Thatcher years when it was starved of resources to breaking point, and again from 2010 with the Tory austerity years and the Lansley Health and Social Care Act 2012. Now the Tories are at it again. Integrated care systems are nothing short of capitulation to the forces of the market.
This Bill will give the private sector the freedom not only to plan services but to do so in their commercial interests above those of patients and to cover their tracks by hiding the records of meetings where they have intervened. For too long, there have been those within the NHS who believe that it can only be improved if it is exposed to the rigours of the marketplace. The rigours of the NHS are saving lives and healing patients. There is no higher market test for the skills and dedication of health workers and none is needed. Where the private sector is used, it should be to support NHS services, not replace them.
Nye Bevan said:
“The NHS will last as long as there’s folk with faith left to fight for it.”
The Labour party breathed life into the NHS. This Bill is one of those occasions where we have to fight for the NHS again, and the Labour party will lead that fight.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I was almost three when I was lying in a hospital bed and my parents were told that I only had two hours to live and they should start preparing for the worst. It was the brilliant doctors and nurses of the NHS who saved my life. The paediatric surgeon who saved my life still refers to me as his miracle.
Only five weeks ago, I became a father for the first time. Thank God for the amazing doctors and midwives at Warwick Hospital, who displayed the highest degree of professionalism. While I do not want to say that they made the journey as painless as possible, mainly because I was not the one giving birth, they certainly made it a little bit easier. I want to thank the midwives, Sharon Lester, Gemma Fletcher and Nadine Morley, and the doctors, Samir Sadanandappa and Giles Coverdale, for all that they did.
I am a believer in the NHS. I am grateful for it. I want to do everything I can to preserve its status as one of the foremost healthcare services in the world. To do this, we must not shy away from reform. We cannot stop in the journey to make the NHS better, fixing what is broken, revolutionising old practices and evolving into a healthcare system that continues to be free at the point of access but delivers world-leading healthcare.
In this Bill, I am particularly supportive of the integrated care systems approach and putting ICSs on a statutory footing. In Birmingham and Solihull we have an ICS on a non-statutory footing. In my experience, while clinical commissioning groups do many good things, when they do not, there is no clear line of accountability. I believe that the Bill will fix that. When I have not been happy with the CCG, I have found myself getting lost in an opaque quagmire of passing on responsibility and lack of accountability, and ultimately it is my constituents who suffer. I am therefore pleased with the ICSs’ place in the Bill, with clear lines of communication straight to the top and putting patients at the heart of everything we do, as we will then have a more tailored and better healthcare service.
In particular, I am keen for us to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach. What works for the urban part of my constituency does not necessarily work for the rural parts. Will the Minister give consideration to what ICSs can do to provide a much more adaptable approach to different communities and different patient needs?
I am concerned about the impact of the past 16 months on the mental health of our population. One charity I spoke to this week said that one in four people will suffer from a diagnosable mental health problem in the next 12 months. I have spoken to a number of charities that have equally great concern about the situation that we are facing. I would like to hear a bit more from the Minister on what the Bill does in terms of improving mental healthcare provision and hopefully get some clarity on that.
I believe that this Bill will improve the NHS. I am optimistic for its future and for the healthcare of this country, as long as we put patients at the heart of everything we do.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) and to congratulate him on the birth of his child.
First, I am going to vote against giving this Bill a Second Reading. I cannot believe that the Government are going ahead with the Bill at this time. It is irresponsible and without any consideration to those who have worked to save our lives and continue to save our lives. The Secretary of State is going to have to assert himself, because he is only just in the job and he seems to have been bounced into this legislation.
Why is this happening now? We have been through this before. I was on the Health Committee from 2010 to 2015. The right hon. Stephen Dorrell was its Chair. On a cross-party basis, we heard evidence that the Bill introduced in 2012 was not the best solution for the NHS. We managed to pause the Bill but the Government continued to press ahead.
Integrated care is Labour party policy. We have seen it. We visited Torbay, where the fictitious Mrs Smith had a single point of entry and everyone was able to track her all the way through the system—through hospital and out—for all her needs. But the 2012 Act stopped that. It stopped the pooling of resources. Integrated care can work only if there are adequate resources for local authorities. Austerity measures since 2010 have starved local authorities and other public services of funding. That is what is making people angry. But the governance of the integrated care system has no clinicians and no patients. People who use it or work in it do not get a say. All sorts of other people can be added on.
My second point is that we do not trust the Government on contracts. Look what happened during the pandemic: £347 million to Randox, the Tory-linked private healthcare company whose testing kits had to be recalled over the summer because of concerns about contamination. We warned them about section 75 and opening this out to tender. The transaction costs associated with that drain the NHS of resources. There is fragmentation and destabilisation. Just ending section 75 is not sufficient; the NHS must become the first and the default option, and private providers cannot be involved in the ICS or in commissioning decisions. We cannot have a select group of fast-tracked friends.
My third point is about the workforce and it has already been raised. They have been magnificent. They have already had a slap in the face with a 1% pay rise and now they are facing further reorganisation. Workforce planning is key to a smart organisation. Clause 33 says who is responsible, but not what must be delivered. Instead of reporting once every five years, how about laying that before Parliament every year? The modelling will have to be done on the workforce assessment, so why can it not be made transparent and available? As the British Medical Association said, we need independently verified projections of future workforce supply so that local and regional decisions can be made on safe staffing levels. That phrase is not even in the Bill, post Francis.
The Secretary of State should think again, as this is the wrong time. The graphs are going up. The BMA and the royal colleges are against this Bill. The main point about healthcare—the right to healthcare—has not been enshrined in the Bill. It must be stopped now, and people and patients should be put first.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
May I thank Neil from Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Buckinghamshire County Council, the local Bucks clinical commissioning group, local GP surgeries, REACH care homes and care workers across South Buckinghamshire, Thames Hospice and Jayne from the Care Campaign for the Vulnerable? They are all already modelling integrated care, which is promised and promoted through this Bill, and I just want to thank them for their tireless service.
I also need to declare an interest: I am now a carer for a very disabled relative, who became disabled through the pandemic and now requires 24-hour care. So I am fully aware of how broken the care pathways are. I want to speak on behalf of disabled adults and their access to care, and the carers who struggle with the demands of finding ways of advocating for their loved one in the current system. I welcome any changes to integrated care because of that. I want to share examples from my personal experience, not because it is important; it just chimes with what I keep hearing from patient advocacy groups, Age Concern, Mencap and other charities. The problem we see is: when a patient is discharged from hospital, who then takes up the duty of care? I have countless examples of my relative being discharged with open bleeding wounds or bed sores, of waiting four days for a nurse to come to attend to them, of being given the wrong medication, of being unable to access—
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I just wanted to give the hon. Lady a bit more time. Does she agree that we would want to see more in this Bill on how social care is going to be accounted for? Currently, I feel that is lacking.
Joy Morrissey
I thank the hon. Lady for the point she has raised. I have had reassurances from the Minister that we are going to address the social care issues, but I agree that we need parity of esteem between health and adult social care. We need to see those who are delivering those care pathways—local authorities—given the parity of esteem that the NHS and other care providers now have. I hope that we will look at this further as the Bill progresses.
Parity of esteem is very important because there is a difficulty with collaboration and co-ordination of care, and it is the major driver of health inequality and avoidable deaths for people with learning disabilities. Many people with learning disabilities have very complex health needs that require healthcare professionals to collaborate and to co-ordinate interventions. On top of that, healthcare staff need to work together to deliver the healthcare that those vulnerable patients need, which requires effective communication and understanding, as well as resource. How those funding streams are co-ordinated and improved in future is something that should be looked at.
I have seen at first hand, particularly with stroke victims who leave hospital with varying levels of cognitive and physical impairment, the need for critical rehabilitation services to be co-ordinated and put in place the moment people leave hospital, but that is often difficult. Many Members have raised the issue of workforce capability—I echo that. We need to look at how we can work together collaboratively to put patients first and deliver the vital services that many disabled adults need. We have an ageing population, and we face a crisis in adult social care that will eclipse all other things in healthcare. If we work to deliver solutions now—I welcome what is in the Bill—to the hard problems that we face in integrated social care, we can find the solutions that we need for the future.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) [V]
With the climate crisis and the reality of an ageing population, there has never been a better time for the Government to centre the wellbeing of people and planet and the way in which public services and the economy are run. Sadly but unsurprisingly, the Bill fails in this context, so I will vote against it, because it does not fundamentally deal with the very real issues facing our healthcare system. It does not address the desert of NHS England providing oral and dental healthcare, which has made it impossible for my constituents to get an appointment. It does not guarantee fair pay and conditions for the key workers who have seen us through the pandemic, and it does not deal with the scandalous state of mental health- care. Patients in my constituency are in crisis, are discharged too early, or not admitted at all, while for a decade, Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust has failed to end the practice of sending patients out of area.
What the Bill does do is transfer yet more centralised power to the Executive—rightly described as a power grab by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth)—and, of course, to the private sector. Clause 13, which provides for the establishment of integrated care boards, opens the door to private companies having a say in where funding is allocated and what services are delivered. Clause 3 gives greater political control to the Secretary of State over the NHS England mandate without creating a duty to provide universal, comprehensive and free healthcare to all. Clause 38 empowers the Secretary of State to intervene in the reconfiguration of services, opening the door for politicised interference and gridlocks on decision making.
Where is the democracy, accountability and transparency in the Bill? How will the right of my constituents to healthcare be guaranteed over and above the interests of private companies and the political whims of the Secretary of State? To see what happens when private companies have any role in delivering care, we need only look at the social care crisis. In England, 84% of care home beds are managed by private companies, and three of the five largest care home companies are owned by investment firms whose main priority is economic rent seeking, not the long-term care of our elderly. That model has, unbelievably, led to a cut in the number of care home beds, despite an ageing population, meaning that demand is only growing.
I therefore urge the House to vote against this legislation on what remains of NHS England. It extends the same failed ideology that puts profit before people and which has driven our planet and public services to breakdown.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
Today’s Bill will help our healthcare system to become more accountable and less bureaucratic, allowing our brilliant healthcare professionals to focus on their job of providing world-renowned care to patients, rather than filling in unnecessary paperwork. It allows our healthcare system to be flexible, adapting to meet future and local needs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) said earlier, a one-size-fits-all approach is rarely the most effective, and today’s Bill will mean local areas can develop practices that best suit their needs.
Rob Roberts
No.
This is something we are acutely aware of in Delyn, as we have a much higher proportion of over-65s than the national average. Sadly, the Welsh Government’s funding to the north Wales health board is significantly lower per capita than that enjoyed by the health board in south-east Wales, but that is a debate for another time and place.
Rob Roberts
No.
Sadly, one of the major elements of today’s Bill that should be praised falls a little short for my constituents in Wales. The Bill will lead to greater collaboration and integration between the NHS, local authorities and care providers in England, and ultimately this will deliver more joined-up working and the best outcomes for patients, yet this move towards greater collaboration needs to go further. We need to see collaboration in healthcare across all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
The NHS is not limited to one part of our country; it is nationwide. When someone is treated in their local hospital, they are treated by the NHS—not NHS England, or NHS Wales but the national health service. People do not see that there should be a difference and, frankly, they do not care.
Just as we should be united in our response to covid-19, it is now time for our healthcare system to work together across borders for the good of all UK residents. Despite holidaying within the same country, as so many people are doing this year, if a constituent from Delyn holidays in Cornwall and needs NHS treatment, their medical records will not be on file and will be difficult to access. Without immediate access to those medical records, I cannot help but worry that it could affect the outcome and care they receive, demonstrating the need to share records between all four nations. This issue is one of many that could be resolved through greater collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations on healthcare, just as we saw with the fantastic vaccine roll-out.
I urge the Government to remember that they are the Government of the whole United Kingdom, which should come with an overarching responsibility to care for and look after all their UK citizens, regardless of the nation in which they reside. As this Bill progresses through the House, I hope the Government draw on the lessons they learned from working together on the covid-19 vaccine programme to consider how greater collaboration in healthcare can be achieved between all four constituent parts of the UK to tackle the public health issues that we collectively face.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I previously had a role within the NHS, and I have family members who work in the NHS, of whom I am very proud.
Nine years ago the Conservative party passed the Lansley reforms, and for nine years the NHS has suffered the consequences of that disaster. We have seen creeping privatisation, fragmentation of services and a lack of adequate funding. For patients that has meant disjointed care and soaring waiting lists, made worse by covid. For healthcare professionals, it has meant the NHS is no longer a hospitable place to work.
Before the pandemic, the national health service had a vacancy rate of 8%, which is 100,000 vacancies. I know from discussions with a variety of professional bodies and unions that there are significant skill shortages that will only get worse. Last year, a survey by the BMA found that 45% of doctors across the UK experience depression, anxiety, stress, burnout and other mental health conditions. How is it right that our NHS professionals are so over-represented among those experiencing mental health problems?
The Royal College of Nursing has found that 36% of nurses are thinking of leaving the profession, and YouGov reports that a quarter of NHS workers are more likely to quit their job than they were a year ago, due to low pay and understaffing. While Ministers have clapped for carers on their doorsteps, many of my constituents who have worked in the NHS rightly say that they do not want platitudes. They want to be heard. They want a proper pay rise and an end to top-down reforms that do nothing to address the real needs and their real concerns.
For them, this Bill is more of the same, but it is also an indictment of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It is the Government admitting that they have failed. Rather than learning the lessons, they have doubled down on the failures. There is nothing on waiting lists, nothing on vacancies and, despite the Prime Minister’s promise of a plan for social care, nothing on fixing the system that the pandemic has shown is not fit for purpose.
Rather than reinstating the duty on the Secretary of State to provide a comprehensive health service, reversing the privatisation of the NHS or reinstating the NHS as the default provider, the Bill allows private providers to sit on the boards that decide how NHS money is spent. It is astounding, but not surprising. After nine years of failure and after a year of handing millions of pounds to Tory cronies for useless PPE and a failed privatised test, trace and track system, the Government are now proposing to increase the influence of private companies in the health service. Unfortunately, on all these issues the Bill has nothing good to say, and even worse, it says all the wrong things.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
In opening this debate, the Secretary of State said that the Bill would improve patient safety. One area in which it does not do that is the area of cosmetic surgery. In April 2013, the Government commissioned Sir Bruce Keogh to do a review of this industry following the PIP—Poly Implant Prothèse—implants scandal. He came forward with some very sensible and clear recommendations to improve safety in the cosmetic surgery industry and to make sure that patients were protected. The review highlighted the fact that those buying a ballpoint pen have more protection than people having non-surgical procedures in this sector. These recommendations have sat on the shelf in the Department of Health since then. I have asked numerous times when they are going to be implemented, only to be told tomorrow, but tomorrow never seems to come.
We did see some change with the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott)—the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021 —which, for example, limited botox for under-18s, but this business is a wild west when it comes to regulation. There is a missed opportunity in this Bill not only to get proper patient safety, but to implement Sir Bruce Keogh’s recommendations, which the Government say they support but somehow do not want to implement. This is a multibillion-pound industry, and patients are being put at risk. It is mainly women who, in this sector, need protection. I hope that the Government will implement the Keogh recommendations in this Bill, and I put the Minister on warning now that I will be tabling amendments for that. This is important, and I do not yet understand the reason why the Government are not doing it, because the royal colleges support this and a large number of Members of Parliament have backed these reforms. They do need to be implemented, and we are missing an opportunity to do so.
May I touch on one last thing about public health? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) that public health, strangely enough, has been forgotten about in this crisis. If we had actually concentrated on putting the main focus on public health and supporting directors, I think we would have had a better outcome. This is not just about this Bill forgetting about public health; it is about the money that goes with it. Under the fair funding formula being touted last year, County Durham would have lost £19 million in public health funding, while Surrey would actually have increased its budget by £14 million a year. That cannot be right. Public health now needs to be at the centre of our healthcare locally, and the Government have to ensure not just that it gets a voice in this Bill, but that local directors of public health get the finance and support they desperately need.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
In the short time I have to speak, I would like to comment generally on the Bill and specifically on one part of it. This is a Second Reading debate, and I see much merit in many of the provisions of this Bill, and the general thrust and direction of it. I understand much of the thinking behind it, as it is a real opportunity to improve the overall performance of our health service, remove some of the unnecessary bureaucracy that has grown up around it and rationalise some of the geography through the ICSs—a very relevant issue to Cumbria—as well as to improve the decision-making process through the boards and encourage collaboration within the health service, although we must still be open and transparent. These are all very welcome changes that have broad support, including from the health professionals in my community with whom I have already had discussions. This will be on top of the additional financial commitment to the health service that this Government have already made, and of the commitment to more doctors and nurses, all of which is very welcome.
I would, however, like to focus on an area of the Bill where I have some concerns. Clause 125 and schedule 16 relate to advertising, and they have the potential to adversely affect our food and drink sector. I remind the Minister that that is the largest manufacturing sector in the country. It employs a significant number of people up and down the country, it makes a huge contribution to our economy and our exports and—this is a key point—it is an innovative sector with considerable research and development and investment. It has already done a huge amount of reformulation to take sugar and salt out of our foods and it continues to do much on this.
I fully appreciate that obesity is a major concern for our society, and rightly so. Everybody wants the UK to be a fit and healthy country, but we have to tackle this issue in a sensible and proportionate manner. I am not convinced that schedule 16 in its present form will achieve very much. What it will do is reduce investment, resulting in fewer products coming to the market, including fewer healthy products—and those are what we want to see those. There would be less incentive to innovate and ultimately fewer jobs and less money in our economy, and all for very little gain in many respects. Also, as an aside, we need to remember that our own health and wellbeing are our own responsibility. I shall therefore be supporting the Second Reading of the Bill today, but in Committee and on Report, I and I am sure other hon. Members will seek amendments to schedule 16. That is so we get the right balance between our health agenda, the food sector and our individual freedoms and responsibilities.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I would like to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats have long supported the aim of integration between health and social care, and the far greater involvement of local authorities in the planning, commissioning and delivery of services. We recognise that the pandemic has forced many of these bodies to work closely together in a much more collaborative way, and that is welcome. However, the Bill pays lip service to social care. It is largely a Bill about NHS reform, with yet another acronym-laden reorganisation that seeks to provide the legislative basis to integrate NHS services, currently in crisis mode, with a broken, underfunded and fragmented social care system. It is a massive power grab by the Secretary of State for political interference in operational and local service reconfiguration decisions and in who runs integrated care boards. The Bill is woefully inadequate in ensuring that the plans and resources are in place to ensure that we have sufficient doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals and carers to deliver care, both now and in the future. This is all against a backdrop of record waiting lists and staff who are burnt out, stressed and struggling to cope with the third wave of the pandemic while dealing with surging A&E visitors and tackling the enormous backlog of care.
Without meaningful social care reform, this Bill cannot realise its aim of providing citizens with better joined-up care. With over 100,000 vacancies in the workforce, 1.5 million people are currently missing out on the care they need, putting additional burdens on the NHS and, importantly, on 9 million unpaid carers. The Government have promised—at the moment I take them at their word, though they have broken it many times—that they will bring forward social care reforms later this year. So why not delay the Bill for a few months and take account of the new model of social care, rather than doing a half-baked job now?
It really beggars belief when we look back over the past 16 months of the pandemic that the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who was the architect of the proposals, seriously thought that granting himself more powers over the day-to-day running of the NHS was a good idea. We only need to look at the PPE fiasco and the failures of test and trace, both of which were run centrally, to see that handing back power to the Secretary of State is the very opposite of what we need. Allowing him or her to meddle in the day-to-day running of our NHS seems to fly in the face of the desire for more local and regional decision making.
I fully support and endorse the proposals of the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) on the health and care workforce independent planning proposals. They need to be properly resourced and annually reported to Parliament. Without a workforce plan, without wholesale reform of social care and while waiting lists are skyrocketing and the Health Secretary is embarking on a power grab that is his predecessor’s vanity project, this Bill will fail in its fundamental aim, shared by most Members of this House and health and care leaders—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Lady’s time has run out.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I declare my interest and my family’s interests in healthcare service.
I welcome the Bill. Those concerned about it should realise that it is an evolution, not a revolution, coming from the ground up. Do not take it from me; take it from the evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee from Simon Stevens, who said:
“We have been working so closely for a number of years with colleagues across the health service and our broader partners. Genuinely, I think this is unusual, if not unique, in having come from the NHS as a series of asks to Parliament rather than something that Parliament is perhaps imposing on the NHS.”
That is the leader of the NHS.
Three minutes is a very short time to try to pull this Bill apart, so I am going to use my time to set out some amendments and new ideas that I would like the Minister to consider. Some are practical, some are short and some are much bigger. The first is simple: annual virus drills for care homes. We have fire drills regularly, but, given the pandemic, care homes may well benefit from being further prepared for future pandemics.
I would like mental wellbeing to be seen as a public health issue. Everyone suffers with their mental wellbeing; not everyone has mental ill health, and this House often gets confused between the two. That is really important, because until we label mental wellbeing as such, it becomes very hard to implement education and protective policies. Many Members will know that my particular interest is body image—the labelling of altered images, just as we label calories on food, so that we have parity between physical health and mental health.
My final idea—this is probably the most revolutionary piece I would like to put across—is to have a named person for change on the frontline. We have named bodies for whistleblowers, and we have protected people who are guardians for data, but fundamentally, change has to come from the bottom. All too often in my career, I was told, “You’re too junior” or “This is the way we’ve always done it.” We want to empower the people on the frontline who understand how the system works to make changes, and I think there is a chance to amend the Bill to do exactly that. I am happy to meet the Minister to explain further.
As I have a little more time, I am keen to comment on the reduction of bureaucracy. It is all very well making sure that there is not a problem when we are commissioning, but fundamentally, we need to look at the admin on the health service side—the barriers between primary care and secondary care. About 5% to 10% of a GP’s workload is dealing with chasing admin. That is not time well spent; it takes services away from the clinical frontline, and it is something that could be remedied, possibly even without legislation.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) [V]
We all know that the last top-down reorganisation of the health service was a disaster for our people and those who work in it, so I was quite excited to hear of the plans to sort it out. I must have been mad. Instead of bringing forward a Bill to deal with their own mess and sort out the health crisis they have created, the Government have introduced a hotchpotch, which will do neither and could make it worse.
The Prime Minister’s response to decades of regional inequality and underfunding of communities such as mine is pathetic. It seems that, instead of introducing robust proposals to reskill our people, invest in our services and tackle their homemade crisis in the NHS, the Government are telling us that an increase in al fresco dining and an extension to the service of takeaway pints are the answers. That sort of trite nonsense is downright insulting to people who live in constituencies such as mine.
People in Stockton North live shorter, less healthy lives than others in more affluent areas by virtue of geography alone. As Cancer Research UK has said:
“If the UK is to tackle inequalities and make sure no community is left behind…then health must be hardwired into the Government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda.”
If the Government are serious about levelling up for communities such as mine, they will have to take meaningful action to tackle the health inequalities that plague them.
In Stockton North, 7.4% of the population suffer from asthma, higher than the 6.5% who suffer across England. In England, the level of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among the population is 1.9%; that rises to 3.1% in my constituency. There are other inequalities, too, and we need action now. Will the new Secretary of State come good where others have failed and provide Stockton with the new hospital it desperately needs?
Some 13.2% of adults in Stockton-on-Tees are smokers, and smoking-attributable hospital admissions and deaths are increasing, yet Government action to reduce smoking has generally stagnated. Measures in the Bill to tackle obesity are welcome, but smoking is the leading cause of preventable premature death, and yet there are no proposals to tackle it. The Bill represents an ideal opportunity to introduce a US-style “polluter pays” levy with tobacco control, as recommended by the all-party group on smoking and health, and which the Government promised to consider two years ago in their prevention Green Paper. The all-party group—I declare my interest as the vice-chair—has provided a model for this approach, and I am grateful to Action on Smoking and Health and others for their work. The all- party group published a comprehensive set of recommendations that would help the Government to achieve their ambition of a smoke-free 2030, including further regulatory measures to de-normalise smoking, but nothing has happened.
Cancer Research UK has estimated that, on current trends, we will not make England smoke free until at least 2037, and it will be longer for poorer communities. We need action now. The Government say that we need bold action; they should take it now. That is one step towards tackling inequalities that blight our country.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
In the past, successful reorganisations have been centred on patient care. We have seen that with cardio and we have seen that with cancer. The reason why this will be successful now is that the aspect of patient care that will improve, including the outcomes for patients, will be around accountability. There are three ways in which the Bill does that quite successfully, but there are also ways in which it could do more.
First, on the involvement of the Care Quality Commission, having the CQC inspect social care services will be crucial for increasing visibility and transparency in terms of the outcomes for patients. The criteria that the CQC uses when inspecting social care and focusing on patient outcomes will make a difference in terms of the quality of care that patients will get—that is also true for integrated care systems as well. We need to make sure that these services are not measured on bureaucratic targets, but on what they are actually doing for patients.
As a side note, let me say that we have talked a lot about GP surgeries today. The CQC, as we all know, inspects GP surgeries. There is a question as to whether these surgeries are doing enough, especially at the moment, when it comes to the outcomes for patients. I have a lot of very good GP surgeries locally, but the levers by which we as Members of Parliament can get them to improve the quality of services are somewhat lacking in many cases and this is something that could be looked at as part of that admirable proposal to increase the involvement of the CQC as part of the Bill.
The second area I want to touch on is to do with the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch. We have seen through the Health and Social Care Committee how important it has been in terms of changing the culture within the NHS. What we have also seen, though, is the number of times that the recommendations have not necessarily been followed through. More focus on that within HSIB and a mechanism by which the Department of Health and Social Care can be mandated to follow through on the outcomes could really add to the accountability part of the Bill.
The final point is around the somewhat thorny issue of political control. I happen to think that my constituents have a right to be involved in decisions that are made by the health service on their behalf that are not clinically based. It is absolutely right that we have a health service that has to explain to my constituents why it wants to do a reorganisation in the area. If my constituents do not agree with it, I should have a mechanism by which I can go to the Secretary of State and say, “Do you know what? I do not agree with what you are doing here. This is not right for my constituents.”
I understand the arguments that are being made today, but the fundamental point about accountability is the one that will really shape the future of our health service. It is a very positive thing, and the mechanisms in the Bill will have a positive effect on the outcome of patients within my constituency and nationwide.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
During the pandemic, NHS staff, care workers and public health teams have all gone the extra mile, as they always do, in protecting and caring for people. Health professionals have been ably assisted by a number of former colleagues who had retired and by an army of volunteers, and I thank them all.
In government, Labour increased NHS funding by more than 9% a year. Let us compare that with the just 2.5% from the Conservatives before the pandemic, or the £8 billion cut from council social care budgets since 2010. In the Liverpool city region, 50,000 patients are waiting to start routine treatment at Aintree University Hospital alone, of whom a third have waited more than 18 months. Meanwhile, many people find it difficult to get an appointment at their local GP surgery. New facilities, including a new health centre in Maghull in my constituency, would help there.
Alongside dealing with the immediate challenges of the pandemic, Labour’s priorities involve addressing the problems caused by those Conservative cuts which predate the crisis: waiting lists, staff recruitment, social care funding, and yes, the need to give our staff a pay rise. After all, who will look after patients if we do not value our staff? Sadly, the Conservatives have rather different priorities. The pandemic has seen companies without a track record—companies that happened to know the right people—making their fortunes. As the National Audit Office confirmed, companies without political contacts had only a 1% chance of succeeding, while £10 million was handed out in contracts without competition. Then there is Serco Test and Trace: delays in returning test results, dependence on £1,000-a-day consultants, and unused call centre capacity.
All that waste and inefficiency prompts us to ask why Ministers were so committed to outsourcing. The Bill offers some answers. Private companies on new health boards and the centralisation of power point to a potential consolidation of the cronyism and privatisation that have characterised the Conservatives’ approach to the covid crisis. Every day that frontline NHS staff are forced to spend on top-down reorganisation is a day less to tackle waiting lists, address the challenges in social care, and cope with covid. Meanwhile, the reorganisation will take money away from local services, where it is most needed. A prime example is the cut of £253 per patient from Knowsley as a result of the Bill. One of the poorest boroughs in the country will face poorer health outcomes.
That is the reality of this Bill. How can it possibly be right?
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, particularly its intention to better integrate health and social care in England. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on obesity, I am pleased to see the introduction of restrictions on the advertising of high fat, salt and sugar products online, and on television before 9 pm. I would, however, emphasise the need for a level playing field between the two. As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I endorse the findings of our inquiry into the preceding White Paper, especially its comments on social care provision and workforce planning. I hope that these matters can be addressed as the Bill, and indeed the year, progresses.
The Bill also provides the opportunity to address some of the disparities in healthcare provision across the United Kingdom. Further to my constructive engagement with colleagues at the Department, I hope that the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), will consider four key proposals.
First, we should mandate the collection of an agreed set of UK-wide directly comparable data on NHS performance and outcomes, for clinical and research purposes. I am already engaging with the Office for National Statistics on how that could work in practice, and believe that the Bill could have an important enabling role to play. Secondly, data interoperability must be improved. It is unacceptable that the health service in Wales often cannot communicate in a fit-for-purpose way with services in England, and vice versa. Thirdly, my direct experience of working in the NHS leads me to feel strongly that inspection, safety and audit mechanisms should be introduced at a national level to ensure a minimum standard of care for all British citizens. Those who are managing inferior services must be able to learn lessons from more effectively run areas and, ultimately, be held to account.
Finally, I hope that the Bill can be used to provide people with equal access to and choice of secondary and tertiary healthcare services across the country, regardless of where in Britain they live. My constituent Ian Kightley was diagnosed with cancer in 2015. As a result of his treatment, he developed problems with his vision and required cataract surgery in both eyes. Like so many in north Wales, when he was advised of a two-year waiting list he was forced to pay for private healthcare, which he was able to do only through fundraising. Only in the last week, while working as a GP, I saw patients who had been advised of two-year waits solely for their first out-patient clinic appointments at Glan Clwyd Hospital.
This Bill provides a vital opportunity for us to level up healthcare and ensure that all our constituents can access the best treatment as soon as possible.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
When a Labour Government proposed a national health service after the second world war, promising free universal healthcare for all, it was a radical idea opposed by the Conservative party, which complained—I quote from an amendment tabled at the time—that it
“discourages voluntary…association…and undermines the freedom and independence of the medical profession”.
The Conservatives did not like it that the NHS was centralised, public and free for all. They condemned it as Marxist and voted against it 22 times. Fundamentally, they opposed the NHS for taking healthcare out of the market and for putting public good before private profit, but they saw its popularity and begrudgingly were forced to accept it.
Those fundamentals have not changed. This NHS corporate takeover Bill is another step away from the original truly public healthcare system, free from the corrosive influence of profit. The Conservative party still opposes that idea. Conservatives should not just take my word for it; they should take the words of their own Members. The Prime Minister, when he was a Back Bencher, slammed the NHS as “monolithic” and “monopolistic”, and called for privatisation. Four senior Cabinet members, when they were Back Benchers, wrote a manifesto in which they argued that two thirds of hospitals should be run outside of the NHS, and run privately or not for profit. We also have a new Health Secretary, who in the last year, alongside his role as a Back Bencher, has been on the books of US megabank JP Morgan. He has been making £150,000 a year from a company that—I quote from its literature—
“see the opportunities that lie ahead”
for private healthcare. The Health Secretary’s ideological hero, Ayn Rand—whose work he says he rereads every year—was an extreme right-wing libertarian philosopher, who detested socialised healthcare.
It is not just words; it is deeds too. The Government are breaking up the NHS, not all in one go, because they know that the public would not like that, but piece by piece. Privatisation by stealth—that is what they have been doing. Since coming into power in 2010, more than £96 billion has gone to non-public healthcare providers and nearly 20% of healthcare bids now go to private providers. This Bill will not reverse that. It will simply entrench it. It will put private companies on healthcare boards, giving them a say over our care and public funds. It will add steroids to the cronyism on steroids that we have seen in this pandemic, whereby Tory mates and donors have been handed billions of pounds in dodgy covid Government contracts. It will implement a healthcare model that incentivises cuts and closures, and rations funding to health boards.
This dangerous Bill is another step towards privatisation. In its place, we need to reinstate the NHS as a truly public service with a proper pay rise for its workers of 15%, making up for a decade of falling pay.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I want to focus on two main areas of the debate: the role of patients in accountability and transparency; and tariffs—the way in which we pay for procedures and care. I support the Bill, but I hope that we have the means to address the deep-rooted cultural issue of regarding patients’ views as less valuable than those who work in our national health service. Before I was elected, I was often involved in advocacy campaigns. Patient groups would want to challenge NHS England’s commissioning policies or service specifications. These policies govern the technologies and procedures that are used to treat conditions, but the patient groups would find the decision-making processes totally impenetrable, as would the clinicians and health policy experts advising them. What chance do individual patients and relatives have to make their voices heard?
The same impenetrability applies to clinical commissioning groups. Patient access to established procedures and technologies is blocked by local policies, but people have to be dedicated to find these policies on convoluted websites or page 178 of a 256-page document. For example, CCGs regularly restrict patient access to hip and knee procedures for patients with a body mass index of over 30. Extraordinarily, some CCGs allow procedures only for patients who have a BMI of less than 25. I would confidently predict that that would disqualify the vast majority of hon. and right hon. Members, and we should call it out for what it is, which is rationing.
Such rationing was routine before covid created massive backlogs in NHS waiting lists in some CCGs. Transparency and openness is the solution to these problems. A formal role for patients on ICS boards, a formal role for patients in the development of commissioning policies and creating a national appeals board for challenging commissioning decisions are all ideas that I hope Ministers might consider as the Bill progresses.
Finally, on tariffs, national tariffs are not perfect but they do incentivise providers to treat as many patients as they possibly can. The Bill states:
“NHS England must publish…‘the NHS payment scheme’”—
a document “containing rules for determining” the prices to be paid in future, including, for example, for hip and knee procedures. Tariffs have led to hip and knee procedures and other procedures being done at volume and at scale, certainly, at least, when commissioners agree to pay for them. High volumes of elective procedures have been a good thing and the current elective backlog is probably the biggest challenge that the NHS faces coming out of the pandemic, so whatever ends up in that document, it needs to be clear, transparent and provide incentives for high-volume procedures to be carried out at pace and at scale.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Government’s health strategy is clear: while health demand rises, the amount of resources being provided to the NHS is declining, which leaves well-heeled patients with nowhere else to go to avoid ill health except into the so-called independent sector. For example, a constituent told me that his opticians had said that he could wait six years for cataract operations, by which time he would be nearly blind, or he could pay for a cataract operation now in the private sector.
Even before covid, the Government had cut the health budget and spending. In Britain we were spending £2,000 per head of population less than was being spent in Germany. There were cuts to the numbers of staff and to their pay, 100,000 vacancies, 17,000 fewer hospital beds and over 100 fewer A&E facilities, with hospital waiting lists therefore doubling—even before covid arose—since the end of a Labour Government. The Bill continues all that process, as we would expect. It will make the NHS more remote because it is top-down, and it is a Trojan horse for elements of privatisation.
Newly remote administrators will have little sensitivity to local health requirements. Members should think of the differences in the health needs of former coalfield communities such as those I represent in West Yorkshire, the inner city of Bradford and the relative affluence of Harrogate, yet all that is to be covered by a single new board, and the centralisation of clinical services makes them less accessible. Some 20,000 people are living in my constituency with no car to their households’ name and with poor public transport, many of them with chronic health needs. How on earth will they be expected to travel to centralised services in Leeds or elsewhere under those circumstances?
There are two competing views of health provision facing each other. Either health is about an ethos of care or it is about making money. This Bill leads in one direction. The Government do not want to fund the NHS properly, so they are trying to entice more private money into health, often from sources, we note, from the Tory party. Privatisation puts one person’s wealth in front of another person’s health. We should look at the pages of the American health service providers today salivating at the prospect of growing NHS waiting lists, and now, so-called independent providers are to be invited to sit on boards that actually manage the NHS budgets. The idea of profiteering from someone else’s ill health is repulsive to most British people, yet it is intrinsic to this Bill. We can call it only one thing: parasitic capitalism. Along with the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and many other practitioners, we must resist the creeping destruction of our NHS.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Generally, the Bill is to be welcomed as it seeks to promote collaboration and the integration of local health and care services. It aims to give local people, local clinicians and those running local NHS and care services more control over the way that health and care services are delivered. The King’s Fund highlighted that the Bill will remove “clunky” competition rules and make it simpler for health and care organisations to work together and deliver more joined-up care to more people. That said, it is important to recognise that the last 16 months have been very challenging and very exhausting for those working in health and care, and in many respects, the last thing that they now need is yet another NHS reorganisation. Groups such as the BMA have concerns and I urge the Government to look at those closely in Committee.
I wish briefly to highlight two issues. First, I urge the Government to retain the existing boundaries, with the Waveney area remaining in an ICS with Norfolk. To change the boundaries to make them coterminous with the two counties would be highly disruptive and an unnecessary distraction, and it would demotivate hard-working staff. It would place at risk the health integration that has taken place in the area in recent years. To achieve better collaboration with care services, it is better to build on the existing foundations rather than to dismantle them. In many respects, boundary wars have been going on behind closed doors for the past seven to eight months, though I am grateful to both the Secretary of State and the Minister for listening to my concerns in recent weeks. I urge them to retain the status quo.
Secondly, the health issue that has taken up most of my time in recent weeks is NHS dentistry—or rather the lack of it. Many of my constituents are in agony and local NHS dentists urgently need the funds to see more patients. We are gradually moving towards a short-term solution, but it has taken far too long. In the longer term there needs to be greater accountability; dentists need to have a voice on integrated care boards; dental budgets should be protected; and steps must be taken to tackle the staffing crisis.
In conclusion, the Bill provides a statutory footing to ways of working that are in many respects evolving naturally. However, there are potential pitfalls, particularly —from my perspective—the changing of ICS boundaries, which I urge the Minister to avoid at all costs.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
This is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. To introduce a Bill like this when the covid pandemic is far from over and staff are on their knees shows a lack of understanding of what is needed.
I am concerned that this reorganisation of the NHS is being used as an opportunity to extend the involvement of UK and international private healthcare companies. The Bill proposes that private healthcare companies can become members of the integrated care boards, potentially meaning they will be able to procure health services from their own companies. Under the Bill, ICBs will have only a “core responsibility” for a “group of people”, in accordance with enrolment rules made by NHS England. There are concerns that this evokes the US definition of a health maintenance organisation, which provides
“basic and supplemental health services to its members”.
What is included in the core responsibilities?
Why is there no longer a duty but only a power for ICBs to provide hospital services? What does that mean for the thousands waiting for elective surgery? What about those waiting for cancer and other therapies? For those who say, “What does it matter who provides our healthcare as long as it meets the NHS principles of being universal, comprehensive and free at the point of need?” I say that not only is the Bill a clear risk to those founding NHS principles but there is strong evidence that equity in access to healthcare, equity in health outcomes and healthcare quality are all compromised in health systems that are either privatised or marketised, as the NHS has increasingly become.
That brings me to my third area of concern: health inequalities. It is notable that the Bill places the duties for the reduction of health inequalities with ICBs. The 2012 duty on the Secretary of State and NHS England to reduce inequalities is repealed, showing the clear lack of commitment to levelling up and the reduction of the structural inequalities that have been laid bare by this pandemic and contributed to the UK’s high and unequal covid death toll. With this change, the Secretary of State is ignoring not only decades of overwhelming evidence that clearly shows that health inequalities are driven at national policy level, but the Prime Minister’s commitment to implement the recommendations that Professor Sir Michael Marmot made in his covid review last December to tackle inequalities and build back fairer.
My final point is on social care. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, I express my profound disappointment that, 19 months since the Prime Minister pledged to fix the broken care system, it still has not been fixed. The Bill is a missed opportunity to set out the framework for social care reform in the context of an integrated health and social care system. For people with dementia and their family carers, who have suffered disproportionately from covid, this is a real blow. They deserve better. For me, the principle of health and social care—
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Anything that starts to undo the damage done by the 2012 Act is welcome. Some of the Bill reflects what has been the reality on the ground for some years: our local health services have indeed been ignoring the competition elements. I applaud them for it; they sensibly recognised that the only way the NHS could cope would be to co-operate, not compete.
I put on record my thanks to those leading our health and care system in Cambridgeshire in recent years. They were brave—they should not have had to break the law to deliver the services that our people needed. I also give heartfelt thanks to all the staff, medical and non-medical, who go above and beyond. What they do not need at the moment, on top of everything else, is the uncertainty that now encompasses them.
The reason why those people were in that difficult position is what makes me oppose the Bill: I will never trust the Conservatives not to try to privatise the NHS. That is based on long experience, because Cambridgeshire was the test bed for many of the 2012 reforms, which of course were driven by Lord Lansley, the then MP for South Cambridgeshire. Long before I came to this place, I was working with other campaigners, particularly Unison, Unite and GMB colleagues, to tackle what felt like an endless onslaught.
I remember arguing over the lifting of the private patient cap. The then chief executive of Addenbrooke’s Hospital told me at an annual general meeting that where he came from, people were very relaxed about private healthcare. For years, Addenbrooke’s had land allocated for a private hospital, and the chief executive admitted that the future business model was to seek to bring patients from across the world.
The then chief exec of the Royal Papworth Hospital was on record as wanting to expand private care from 5% to 15%. Nearby Hinchingbrooke hospital was run as a private outfit by Circle Health, until it handed it back because it could not make it work; Circle was then run by Ali Parsa, now CEO of Babylon Health, whose app was so brazenly promoted by the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock). Then there was the UnitingCare fiasco, which I spoke endlessly about in this House: an £800 million five-year contract under which older people’s services were, effectively, privatised, until it collapsed in a huge waste of time, effort and public money. So there is form, and that is why I will always oppose this legislation.
There are other concerns, but time is limited, so I will cite just a couple. The British Association of Social Workers has highlighted the removal of social work assessment prior to hospital discharges. It is right to do so. The relationship between hospitals and some care homes has long been far too close, in my view—frankly, at times it borders on the corrupt. There is pressure to discharge too quickly, so the last thing we need to do is remove professional assessment. I am also concerned about clause 80 on data sharing, because I do not trust the Government on that either.
We have a wonderful NHS. It needs support, not reorganisation, but all past experience and evidence tells me that the Tories will always want to find a way of making money out of it. We will always try to stop them, because that is not what the NHS is about.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to support the Bill. It is the first significant reorganisation of healthcare in recent years, and only the second since the Conservatives came into office following 13 years of Labour Administrations who reorganised the health services nine times, so we should not be taking lessons from the Opposition on the timing or the fact of putting things right.
The Bill is very substantial legislation that learns lessons from the way in which the NHS has had to work during the covid pandemic. In particular, the flow-through of patients discharged out of the acute sector as a result of much closer working with social care and local authorities is an integral part of creating the new integrated care boards. I very much welcome the fact that they are being established on a statutory footing and that there will be representation from local authorities and a role for health and wellbeing boards to provide local oversight. That is an essential step to allow the healthcare economy across our communities to collaborate effectively, and to remove some of the artificial barriers.
I will touch briefly on three other points. On the measures proposed for reconfiguration, we in Shropshire have been at the wrong end of a protracted reconfiguration process for our acute hospitals. Streamlining the process by which decisions are made will benefit patients. In Shropshire, it has taken several years to reach the point at which decisions can be made, and at every stage obstacles are put in place that add to delay and uncertainty. As a consequence of that, it is hard to attract staff to a system not working as well as it should, and the system has gone into special measures. The provisions to streamline difficult decisions are therefore very welcome.
Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, said, the Bill is somewhat light on workforce, but it does include key measures to speed up the ability of physicians trained in other systems to be welcomed into the NHS or to return to the NHS and if they have retired. I urge Ministers in Committee to look carefully at what can be done—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am afraid we are under huge time constraints.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This Health and Care Bill has been conceived in bunkers behind screens within echo chambers. It is straight from the US health market, and its architects are immune to objection from the frontline leaders who are expected to deliver a new health and care system. In case the Government had not observed it, those people are in the midst of managing a pandemic, its resurgence and its aftermath. They are holding together a fragile workforce, traumatised by the pressure and sacrifice of the covid war. They are vaccinating a nation while seeing others fall to preventable diseases. They are embracing those with broken minds as they try desperately to hold on to their own.
It is no time to strip out the NHS’s infrastructure and replace it—eager as we are to do so—with something as ill-defined, void of detail and illiterate as the Bill presents. The Bill will shift the blame for an imploding NHS and shattered care system from the impervious Prime Minister to NHS workers. The backlogs will be their fault. They will be to blame for service cuts, and the Government will shrug their shoulders at the postcode lottery and rationing. We have more than 5 million people waiting for hospital appointments. We are unable to see a GP for weeks. We are waiting longer than ever at A&E and, when the care system fleeces people for all they have and fails to restore their dignity in their fading years of life, the Bill scapegoats local health and care teams while the Government wash their hands.
We are in this mess because, in 2012, the Government—and, let us not forget, their Lib Dem chums—messed with our NHS, ignored clinicians and seeded the failures that we have witnessed throughout the pandemic. History repeats itself. The market-driven system enabled Ministers to sign away billions of pounds on crony contracts while frontline staff were wrapped in bin bags—and some, tragically, in body bags. The Bill lets the Government off the hook. When things go wrong, they will simply blame others as they avoid shame. But, worse, private companies are already sitting round the tables of the shadow integrated care systems to profit further. Nothing has changed. If the Bill changes nothing, we do not need it to further destroy the remnants of Labour’s precious NHS. At the one time we need certainty, there is none.
The Bill fails to provide the vital stability, funding, accountability or transparency that is needed. It fails on prevention and the advances that patients need. It has more private commissioning, not less, no workforce planning or vital staff pay and, crucially, no social care, yet the NHS will integrate with it. Labour believes that people deserve better. We must have integrated health and social care, free to all in need, wholly delivered in our public sector by fairly rewarded staff and accountable to this Parliament and to the people. Now is not the time and this is not the Bill. I will vote against it.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Bill, and I particularly welcome its aims and objectives to provide the best possible health and care to everyone in this country. However, to achieve that, things must change in the legislation. It must have explicit provisions for mental health, not just physical health. It must also include provisions for children’s social care, not just adult social care, and provide for the commissioning of not just medical services, doctors, nurses, infrastructure and hospitals but medicines and devices, which we know have been crucial in the fight with covid.
How are we going to do that? First, we need to include parity of esteem clauses—one for mental health and one for social care. We need to define what we mean by parity of esteem, which will be a first: what are we going to put in? Not just money; what processes will we promise to deliver? What healthcare outcomes are we looking to deliver? We need the same for mental health and social care—both are deserved.
As others have said, we need a proper workforce plan, but it must cover not just health but social care, and it must look specifically at how we will deal with recruitment. How will we deal with the career path in future? How will we look at training and retention for the future? There should be an integrated plan, not one for health and one for care. Our nurses, for example, work across both systems.
We need to provide for the commissioning of medicines and devices. Currently, it is a postcode lottery. The previous legislation on medicines and devices covered licensing, but not commissioning. Patient choice depends upon forming that system so that everyone gets access to the medicines approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Currently, that is not the case.
We must positively review the big-picture strategy. What do we need? What are the skills we need for health and care? We must look broadly, not narrowly. We must look at what greater role our pharmacists can play. How can we improve our training so that people have more general skills that we can use in a pandemic such as this, so that everyone in the health system can be used? To support that, we will need to rework the membership provisions for the ICBs and the ICPs. We will need to amend the data regulations to ensure that they can go beyond the boundary of the NHS, and we will need to look at our medicines directory—the sister of the devices registry—to ensure that it includes information from research through to patient experience. There is much to do; it can be done. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The NHS was established to provide equal rights to healthcare, free at the point of delivery, irrespective of income or personal health. Yet as we emerge from the pandemic in praise of the NHS, this Bill is yet another step towards dismantling and privatising the system.
With the highest vaccination rates, thanks to the NHS, England also has the highest infection rate of the delta variant, thanks to the Government going into lockdown too late and coming out too soon. With 128,000 people dead, 695,000 currently have the covid variant and there are record waiting lists. The Government should be investing in more capacity now—in the workforce and in beds. They should be reinstating the 12,000 empty beds. Instead, the Government are putting £10 billion into the private sector over four years, with the framework contract, when the private sector has only 8,000 beds in total. Doctors will have to leave NHS hospitals to go to private hospitals, further disrupting NHS services.
Coming out of the pandemic, we need a healthcare Bill that re-energises the NHS and rewards our nurses and doctors who saved the country from calamity. Instead, this Bill allows private health companies to sit on boards, deciding where the NHS funding is spent. It allows further outsourcing, opening the door to more taxpayers’ money being siphoned off to the profits of private contractors. The NHS is being fragmented. Talk of patient choice is disingenuous, as funds must be transferred in the internal market, so it is a postcode lottery. There has not been patient choice in England since the internal market was introduced.
In contrast, in Wales, the Labour Government continues with a planned system that has delivered the highest vaccination rate in the world and a 90% effective test, track and isolate system, wholly delivered by the public sector through councils and health authorities. Wales has a lower death rate over a five-year average—13% in Wales vs. 20% in England, despite Wales’s older population. There is public procurement in place of crony contracts to Tory donors.
Wales has shown that public money is used most effectively in the NHS by public sector delivery, so more people are treated equally, irrespective of income and personal health, true to Aneurin Bevan’s founding principles. Instead, the Bill is a back door for United States companies, via trade deals, to further break up our system, on the road to health insurance, which hits the poorest and sickest hardest.
This is a rotten Bill. It is bad for Britain’s health, bad for our wealth and bad for our most treasured achievement —our NHS.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I confess that I am wary of NHS reorganisations, but as Sir Simon Stevens told the Health Committee, this one is almost unique in being primarily a response to a series of requests from the NHS to Parliament. In delivering a more integrated health and social care system, the Bill will implement a number of proposals in the NHS’s own long-term plan and crucially, as other hon. Members have said, the Bill is accompanied by the commitment to raise NHS funding by £33 billion—the largest cash increase in its 73-year history.
I would hope that, in putting the integrated care systems on a statutory footing, Ministers will give them a strong mandate to conduct and fund research. The pandemic has shown the vital importance of research. Not only did the Oxford University scientists deliver a world-leading vaccine in record time, but their recovery trial established dexamethasone as the first effective treatment for covid, saving thousands of lives.
The report that I co-authored for the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform sets out a blueprint for a new regulatory architecture for clinical trials to replace the EU clinical trials directive. The Bill could be an opportunity to take those reforms forward, along with our ideas on a more modern approach to health data. These plans would improve the chances of discovering better treatments for life-threatening diseases and could unlock huge economic opportunities, capitalising on the abilities of our world-leading scientists and universities.
As many have said, the Bill must be used to improve workforce planning. As demands grow on the NHS, we must continue to expand capacity, and we cannot do that unless we are training and recruiting the people we need. In particular, we must have more GPs so that our constituents can get the care that they need when they want it. GPs are currently under unprecedented demand pressure. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Bill gives GPs a strong voice in the new structures to ensure that local input is given to those new structures.
Supporting the NHS will always be a key part of the work that I do as MP for Chipping Barnet, because I know how important it is to my constituents. Knowing that the NHS is there when we need it is one of the greatest advantages of living in our United Kingdom. The covid emergency has reinforced that a thousand times over, and I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of our NHS and thank them for their courage, dedication and professionalism.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
This month we marked the 73rd birthday of the NHS, and instead of celebrating it and giving it the homage that it deserves—the NHS, one of the very best things about our country—the Government have introduced a Bill that looks set to ramp up their long-standing attempts to continue to privatise it. I was proud to add my name to the reasoned amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) because we do not need private healthcare companies to sit on boards deciding how NHS funding is spent, further outsourcing of contracts without proper scrutiny, transparency and accountability, or the introduction of a model of healthcare that incentivises cuts and the closure of services.
Forcing NHS staff to implement yet another top-down Conservative reorganisation would take people away from the task of tackling growing treatment lists and coping with rapidly rising covid cases. We need to fill our 84,000 vacancies, and we need a 15% pay rise across the board for our NHS staff. It is hard to see how ordering a reorganisation such as this while ignoring calls for increased funding and a plan for social care could be anything other than disastrous.
This corporate takeover Bill—which is exactly what it is—will put private companies at the heart of the NHS and pave the way to sell off our confidential health data to multinational corporations. Nobody wants that. It will normalise the corrupt contracting that we have seen during the pandemic. The money that we spend on our healthcare should go to the services that we need, not to the pockets of Conservative party donors or corporate shareholders. Over the path of the pandemic, we have seen what this outsourcing and privatisation has meant in practice. Contract after contract awarded without competitive process. People being failed. Failing contracts. Delivery failed on again and again. Now the Government want to open up new ways for that to happen, just as they have done throughout the pandemic.
Let us consider what happened with Track and Trace, which was a complete disaster in the hands of Serco. The system has been so ineffective that, recently, MPs concluded that it had ”no clear impact”—a £37 billion system with no clear impact. After a decade of cuts, it was our NHS and its staff and volunteers who led the vaccination roll-out. That was a success, but it was their success, not the Government’s success. That is a lesson that we can learn about exactly what happens when we give the NHS the funding it needs, but the Bill does nothing to do that. We do not need more overpaid consultants involved the NHS; we need to value the staff we already have, and put in the investment that made the vaccination programme a massive success. We must be clear—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We must move on to the next speaker.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I strongly support the Bill. However, although it contains strong measures to combat obesity, there is none to tackle smoking, which is the leading cause of preventable premature death, including cancer. I declare an interest as chairman of the all-party group on smoking and health. The report we proposed suggested that we implement the “polluter pays” levy that the Government promised to consider two years ago. The Bill is the ideal opportunity to introduce such a levy. Analysis by Cancer Research UK shows that we will not achieve the Government’s aim of a smoke-free England until 2035—the Government target is 2030, so years later—in our poorest communities, so there is no time to waste. We must get on with the job.
In the Government’s recent paper on public health, they accepted that they have a responsibility not only to help people improve their own health, but to go further when it comes to industries that are based on addictions such as smoking. The Bill is the ideal opportunity, and I urge the Government to consider the recommendations laid out by the all-party group and table them as amendments in Committee, so that we tackle the most deadly addiction in our society.
We need to combat not only smoking rates but the long-standing, unacceptable health inequalities that exist across the country. The plan needs to be comprehensive, but it will not be effective without sufficient additional and sustainable funding. A smoke-free 2030 fund, using the industry to pay for it, but without industry interference, could pay for the comprehensive measures that we need to reach that ambitious target across all socioeconomic groups.
On the plan to combat obesity, there is a measure that will be harmful to many of our media companies, but it will not hit some of the social media and online companies. That runs the risk of having a two-stage process. Perhaps we could consider having limits at weekends to limit the impact of junk food advertising on TV when our young people are watching.
Overall, however, this is a good Bill. We should support it, and we should support our national health service that has brought it before us today.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to everyone working in health and social care and to unpaid family carers. All of them have gone above and beyond in their caring roles during the pandemic. The Government’s response to that could have been to give NHS staff a proper pay rise, to publish plans to put social care on a sustainable financial footing, or to recognise fully the tremendous contribution made by unpaid carers. Instead we have this Bill, and a top-down reorganisation of the NHS that will concentrate power in the hands of the Secretary of State, offering no guarantees of better outcomes for patients and removing rights from carers.
It is welcome that the Bill brings an end to every NHS contract having to be put out to tender and that some changes in the Bill reference unpaid carers, but further changes are needed. Change is needed to put a duty on the NHS to have regard to carers and to promote their health and wellbeing.
It is welcome that the Bill includes a duty on both NHS England and the integrated care boards to consult carers, but rather than just involve and consult them in relation to patients, the duty that is needed is for the NHS to consider carers in their own right, as proposed by the Health and Social Care Committee in its report.
It is worrying that the Bill undermines carers’ rights in relation to hospital discharge. Clause 78 removes carers’ fundamental rights by removing the need to assess a patient at the point of hospital discharge. The way that is done removes carers’ fundamental right to have an assessment to ensure services are provided to make sure the patient is safe to discharge into their care. This is an issue, as Carers UK quotes research showing that only 26% of carers were consulted about discharge and that a third were consulted only at the last minute.
The Bill proposes to extend the Care Quality Commission’s remit to cover the delivery of social care services. However, that excludes social care provided through NHS continuing healthcare. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found last year that people continue to be seriously let down by failings in how continuing healthcare is delivered. I ask the Minister to agree with the Continuing Healthcare Alliance that there should be an additional duty on the CQC to assess integrated care systems’ delivery of their continuing healthcare duties and to hold them to account where these duties are not being met.
The Care Quality Commission will have a remit to rate local authorities’ delivery of social care, but when £9 billion has been taken out of social care budgets and long-term reform is consistently delayed, the Government should recognise that inadequate social care services are a problem of their own making.
Finally, I question the timing of the Bill. Staff are exhausted and are facing another wave of covid infections over the summer. I urge the Secretary of State to recognise that and adjust the timeframes for implementing these reforms so that they do not end up distracting from the NHS’s real job of caring for patients.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, and I pay tribute to my NHS managers and social care managers in Cornwall. They have been straining at the bit for a long time to integrate more effectively and more successfully, and the Bill will help them to formalise that integration and do a good job of it.
In the short time I have, I want to talk about the patient’s perspective. We know that diabetes, for example, costs the NHS and social care a colossal amount of money, and we also know that across the UK we have pretty much all the tools, treatment, care, support and devices so that someone with diabetes can manage their condition and live, as much as possible, a full and good life. We also know that, because of the current situation, that care is not joined up and is not universal across the country. I hope the Bill delivers, for diabetes, a joined-up, clear pathway from diagnosis—I welcome the emphasis on prevention, too—through their lifetime, as they manage this lifelong condition. The Bill enables them to get every bit of support and care and every device they need to live full lives, to manage their care and to take an active part in society as a whole.
I am talking about people with diabetes because I chair the all-party parliamentary group on diabetes, which I should have declared, but the Bill also provides a blueprint for all sorts of lifelong conditions that enables people to live their lives successfully in their community.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
In today’s debate we have heard from 37 hon. and right hon. Members, as well as the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), and another 29 hon. Members registered an interest to speak but were not called. A huge range of topics has been covered, some of which I hope to address briefly. I hope Members will forgive me if I cannot mention each contribution individually.
Many Members have talked about the particular geographic configuration of their ICS, and it is clear that there is lots of unhappiness about that in certain parts of the country. That is hardly surprising, given that has been done without any parliamentary oversight so far. It seems that, under the Bill, Parliament will not even get to approve where the boundaries lie.
There has been no attempt at public consultation or discussion about where these boundaries sit, and that is a theme throughout the Bill. Decisions, money and power move further away from the public and closer to the Secretary of State. He is certainly taking back control but, at the same time, he is silencing the patient voice.
In the Bill, the Secretary of State has a veto on who leads the integrated care systems, and he can stop foundation trusts borrowing money that they desperately need to tackle the £9 billion maintenance backlog. He even has the power to decide whether to instigate the closure of local services.
By contrast, when the 2012 Act was going through Parliament, Lord Lansley, who was then Secretary of State, told the Chamber:
“We want clinicians and their patients to lead the NHS, but they cannot do this while they sit under a vast hierarchy of regional and local organisations, all reporting to Whitehall. Everyone agrees that top-down command and control gets in the way of clinicians doing their job”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 613.]
The Bill supercharges command and control, so it is little wonder that even the British Medical Association has come out against it. It creates a vast web of new organisations, but very few of them will make decisions. It is pretty clear that the integrated care partnerships in particular will be little more than bystanders when it comes to the crunch, and that the boards will have all the power. That is a huge democratic deficit that must not be allowed to go unchallenged. When we hear about companies such as Virgin already having a seat on one of the ICS boards in the south-west we know that the power lies in totally the wrong place. The Bill needs to make it crystal clear that private companies should be a million miles from making decisions about how the NHS is run.
At the same time, the Bill does not legislate for boards to include a representative from a mental health organisation, for example. How will that encourage integration, let alone parity of esteem? There are plenty of others who are not guaranteed a seat at the table but who ought to be in the vanguard of integration: directors of adult social care, directors of public health, carers and, most of all, patients, who seem to have been completely forgotten in all this. How will decisions be made by the boards? Will there be transparency about where the money is spent in those areas which, we should not forget, are much larger than clinical commissioning groups. How can we be sure that the money will go to those parts of the ICS with the most need, and how can that be challenged if it does not?
We have seen the blatant abuse of the levelling-up fund, and party political considerations seep into every decision made by the Government. Will it now be patients who pay the price for that? How will the combined trust deficits of £910 million be met? The danger is that the Bill will force ICSs to close small local services to bail out the bigger trusts.
While we welcome an end to section 75 provision, I wonder exactly how much money has been wasted in convoluted procurement processes and legal challenges. Is it £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion? Whatever the final figure, there is no doubt that that money could be better spent on frontline services. While moving away from that monumental mistake is a good thing, it seems as if we are going from one extreme to the other, with the removal of any safeguards at all on who contracts can be awarded to. The Government are legislating for cronyism. I am sure that pub landlords and pest control companies will be delighted, but we cannot give the Secretary of State the blank cheque that the Bill allows.
There is a huge blank sheet of paper where the plan to tackle the workforce crisis ought to be. The Secretary of State will produce a report once every five years, but that is not a serious commitment to the workforce. Indeed, it is not a serious commitment to Parliament either, and the social care workforce is not even mentioned. Let us not forget that we have 122,000 vacancies in that workforce. The Select Committee has set out the kind of people whom we really ought to aim to employ, with annual, independently audited reports that cover the NHS and social care. In the words of the Select Committee:
“The way that the NHS does workforce planning is at best opaque and at worst responsible for the unacceptable pressure on the current workforce which existed even before the pandemic.”
The Bill will only reinforce that position, rather than reverse it.
In the introduction that the Secretary of State gave to the Bill today, it sounded very much as if he thought that it was the panacea that we have all been waiting for, but many more experienced Members could be forgiven for having a sense of déjà vu. Let us remind ourselves of what Lord Lansley told the House about the 2012 reforms:
“Previous changes have tinkered with one piece of the NHS or another, when what was needed was comprehensive modernisation to create an NHS fit for the demands of the 21st century. That is precisely what this Health and Social Care Bill will deliver.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 616.]
The Health and Social Care Bill provided for the constitution and structure of the NHS to work for the long term. How has that worked out? There are record waiting lists and staff vacancies; billions diverted into the private sector away from the NHS; life expectancy has stalled; and A&E targets have been missed five years in a row. The NHS was trying to unpick the last disastrous reorganisation before the ink was even dry on the Royal Assent, so why is this set of reforms going to be any more successful than the last? How is one line of this Bill going to tackle the operation backlog? Is not the truth that without a proper sustained funding settlement to meet the demand in both health and social care, this latest set of reforms is merely another rearrangement of the deckchairs? Why, oh why, is so much time and resource being focused on a wasteful, top-down reorganisation, in the middle of the pandemic? Even the Prime Minister told us on Monday that we are not out of it yet. Only today, planned operations have been cancelled in Newcastle because of a surge in covid cases. Is it not the case that every meeting called, every document written, every minute spent on this top-down reorganisation is less time spent on fighting the increase in covid cases we currently see, bringing down waiting lists, tackling the increase in mental health conditions, solving the workforce crisis and actually delivering the reform to social care that the Prime Minister promised nearly two years ago?
This Bill is the equivalent of someone reorganising the whole interior of their house, spending fortunes on new furniture and decorations, but finding it is all ruined within months because they forgot to put a roof over their head; we cannot fix the NHS if we do not fix social care. We know that, everybody knows that. The Government say they have a plan, but we still do not know what it is. Crucially, for the purposes of today’s debate, we do not know whether it will fit in with what is in this Bill. So are we going to have yet another reorganisation next year because there was no forward thinking? What about learning the lessons from covid? The inquiry is not even going to start until next year, so are we going to see yet another reorganisation when we have learned the lessons from that? The only thing guaranteed from this reorganisation is that another one will surely follow shortly afterwards. So let us reject this Bill, go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that actually deals with the challenges that we have to face.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Before winding up this important debate, I would like to put on the record, as I always do and as I know the shadow Minister does, our gratitude to all the staff in the NHS, social care and local government, and other key workers, for everything they have done in recent months. This Bill is evolution, not revolution. It supports improvements already under way in our NHS and it builds on the recommendations of the NHS’s own long-term plan, laying the foundations for our recovery from this pandemic. This Bill is backed by not only the NHS, but so many others working across health and care. A joint statement from the NHS Confederation, NHS Providers and the Local Government Association reads:
“we believe that the direction of travel set by the bill is the right one.”
It notes that working in partnership at a local level is “the only way” we can address the challenges of our time. The chief executive of Age UK has said that ICSs are to be embraced and made as effective and inclusive as they can be, and the King’s Fund is calling for us to press ahead. The list goes on; the NHS wants us to press ahead, and in the words of Lord Stevens, “The overwhelming majority of these proposals are changes the health service have asked for.” So it is vital that we in this House do right by them and by patients at this critical juncture. It is the right time for this Bill. We legislate, Opposition Members obfuscate. I remind the shadow Secretary of State of his 2017 manifesto, which stated:
“We will reinstate the powers of the Secretary of State for Health to have overall responsibility for the NHS.”
With this Bill, we put increased accountability for the Secretary of State at the heart of this, yet now the shadow Secretary of State no longer seems to agree with himself and characterises his own proposals as “meddling”. I know that he is dextrous in his politics and in his policy position, which is probably why he has survived under multiple Leaders of the Opposition, but this is stretching it a bit.
We have sought, in getting to this point, to work on a collaborative basis at every stage, and hon. Members can be reassured that we will continue to adopt that approach in the weeks ahead as we proceed with this Bill, when we hope it goes into Committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in his opening remarks his willingness to listen. In particular, he highlighted that in the case of ICS boundaries no decision has yet been made. As he set out, we are determined to embrace innovative potential wherever we find it. That is quite different from many of the accusations we have heard here today. I know it is tempting for some—even when they know better, and they do—to claim that it is the beginning of the end for public provision. It is not and they know it. They know it is scaremongering rather than reality. They know that there has always been an element of private provision in healthcare services in this country, and they should know that because, as the Nuffield Trust said in 2019:
“The…evidence suggests the increase”
in private provision
“originally began under Labour governments before 2010”.
The shadow Secretary of State should certainly know that because he was a special adviser in the Treasury and in No. 10 at that time.
With regard to the implementation of the Bill, the NHS itself wants, subject to legislation, to move at pace to implement statutory arrangements for ICSs by April 2022. That is why NHS England is beginning preparatory work, including publishing an ICS design framework. Further work, including on integrated care board design and consideration of appointments and staff from CCGs will take place, after Second Reading, of course; this is all subject to the passage of the Bill.
Let me turn to some of the specific points raised by hon. and right hon. Members. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) asked about “Agenda for Change”. I can reassure her that it is not the intention that ICBs depart from “Agenda for Change”. The Bill’s drafting and wording is in line with existing arrangements for other NHS bodies with regard to “Agenda for Change” and translates it into this context. However, I am always happy to discuss that with her further if she wishes. Her suggestion that this was conceived, as she put it, in a bunker is quite simply not the case. Indeed, all the stakeholders, including the NHS, have said that this is one of the most collaborative pieces of legislation development they have seen.
Turning to the workforce, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said, we cannot legislate to address workforce challenges but we can and we will look very carefully at the recommendations of the Select Committee and of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt).
While we do not always agree on everything, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) made sensible points, although I would slightly tease her that she argued against the principle of the Secretary of State taking powers in reconfiguration and shortly afterwards her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), intervened on him asking him to do exactly that.
Edward Argar
She did.
In response to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), I am again grateful for her comments and happy to accept her kind invitation to join her on a visit to Scotland.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made a very important point. In doing so, he rightly paid tribute to the work in this space done by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) with her recent private Member’s Bill. As the Secretary of State said, either he, I or the relevant Minister will be happy to meet him to discuss it further. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) was right to talk about the need for local flexibility. That is what we are seeking to do.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) asked more broadly about public spending constraints after 2010. He is brave, perhaps, to mention that. I recall the legacy of the previous Labour Government, which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) summed up pretty effectively in saying,
“I’m afraid there is no money.”
On social care, which a number of hon. and right hon. Members mentioned, we will take no lessons from Labour. In 13 years, after two Green Papers, a royal commission and apparently making it a priority at the spending review of 2007, the net result was absolutely nothing—inaction throughout. We are committed to bringing forward proposals this year. Labour talks; we will act.
The NHS is the finest health service in the world. We knew that before the pandemic, and the last year and a half have only reinforced that. It is our collective duty to strengthen our health and care system for our times. I was shocked, although probably not surprised, that the Opposition recklessly and opportunistically intend to oppose the Bill—a Bill, as we have heard, that the NHS has asked for—once again putting political point scoring ahead of NHS and patient needs. For our part, we are determined to support our NHS, as this Bill does, to create an NHS that is fit for the future and to renew the gift left by generations before us and pass it on stronger to future generations. We are the party of the NHS and we are determined to give it what it needs, what it has asked for and what it deserves. I encourage hon. Members to reject the Opposition amendment, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I apologise to the 30 Members who did not get to speak in this important debate, some of whom are currently in the Chamber.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Feltham and Heston to call on Santander to stop the closure of the bank branch on Bath Road in Hounslow West.
The petitioners declare that it is crucial to save this vital, valued branch, which has two cashpoints, helps to boost our local economy and provides vital banking services for thousands of local residents, many of whom are older people without access to online banking. Residents use the branch frequently and have valued the service from Santander for many years.
This petition, along with the corresponding online petition, has collected more than 400 signatures and been supported by local councillors, particularly Councillor Bandna Chopra, Councillor Jagdish Sharma and Councillor Sumra, and colleagues and residents from across Hounslow West, Heston and Cranford.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ask that Santander does not close the Bath Road branch.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Feltham and Heston,
Declares that the Santander branch on Hounslow Bath Road should not be closed; further that access to in-person banking services is crucial to many residents in the local area; and further that residents feel that they will not have access to a comparable banking service over the phone or online and will struggle financially as a result.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ask that Santander does not close the Bath Road branch.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002675]
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Sandbach in my constituency. It asks for provision for the existing Sandbach cemetery to be extended.
I have met a number of local people who are very concerned that in a short time Sandbach residents will no longer have access to cemetery space in their own town and will have to travel some miles out of the town for burials and to visit relatives’ gravesides, unless an extension or alternative cemetery provision in the town is not secured.
A petition with similar wording that has been circulated by volunteer campaigners in Sandbach has been signed by more than 4,400 people—a very substantial number for a town the size of Sandbach. I hope that my presentation of this petition in the House today will serve to highlight the extent of the concerns deeply held by local residents and constituents more widely.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Sandbach cemetery is nearly full so future burials would take place several miles out of town; notes that a local petition calling for an extension to the cemetery land has received over 4,400 signatures.
The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to request Cheshire East Council to reconsider their decision not to extend burial provision in Sandbach.
And the petitioners remain etc.
[P002676]
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Vale of Clwyd regarding maintenance of the Rhyl Cut and Prestatyn Gutter, alongside an online petition on the same topic that has been signed by 606 people.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of the Vale of Clwyd,
Declares that the maintenance of the Rhyl Cut and Prestatyn Gutter should be the responsibility of Natural Resources Wales, Denbighshire County Council and connected public sector bodies; further that existing riparian ownership should not prevent the creation of an effective system of oversight; and further that the current ineffective management of this local waterway results in significant environmental blight.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure that a full public sector maintenance programme is introduced to manage the Rhyl Cut and Prestatyn Gutter.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002677]
Devolution for the East Midlands
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I am pleased to have secured this important debate on devolution in the east midlands region. I understand that the forthcoming levelling-up White Paper will set out the Government’s plan for further rounds of local and sub-regional devolution. If so, it seems a pertinent time to examine the opportunity in the east midlands to put an ambitious levelling-up and devolution package at the heart of a sustained recovery for our region. I have had some exploratory discussions with other council leaders across the region and have been met largely with enthusiasm and a commitment to explore our options in more detail. There is a genuine will and a drive to get on with things in the east midlands. We need the Government to give us the tools to do the job at hand for UK plc.
I pay tribute to the great work of leaders across the region who have come together in recent years on projects such as HS2, our development corporation and our freeport. Those leaders, from across the public and private sectors, have shown courage and commitment to the region, bringing forward ambitious plans despite the pressures of the pandemic. In my conversations with those colleagues, there is a strong ambition to bring power and resources closer to their councils, universities and businesses. In a post-pandemic world, it is vital that we harness that enthusiasm, and commit to rebuilding the east midlands economy, improving the living standards of local people and bringing high-value jobs, sustainable employment, training opportunities, growth and prosperity to the region.
I also thank Sir John Peace for his leadership of the midlands engine. A devolution package for the east midlands would complement and strengthen the work of the engine and Midlands Connect, and help him to deliver on some of the ambitions that he has for the region. It can support the huge effort and resource that he gives to our key priorities.
The east midlands is home to more than 5 million people and over 175,000 businesses. It has a diverse mix of counties and cities, market towns, countryside, and distinct culture and communities. It contains world-class business, innovation and manufacturing excellence. The east midlands economy has untapped potential for growth. Despite this critical mass and potential, the east midlands has received some of the lowest levels of Government investment over many years compared with other parts of the country.
Ours is a region of undoubted attributes and proud heritage. What is often overlooked, however, is its strategic location, creating, as it does, a bridge between the south and the north of the country. It also has strategic transport links that help connect the Union as they go north through England and up into Scotland. For that reason, the east midlands is vital. It is a hub for our nation, but for too long it has been seen instead as a place that people drive through to get from one place to another. It is so much more than that and we must capitalise on that potential.
The resurgence of the east midlands is critical for the renewal of the UK economy as a whole. Given our position at the bottom of those rankings for investment, we must therefore be at the centre of a levelling-up agenda. An east midlands combined authority, under a unified vision and plan that is complementary to the midlands engine and the Government’s devolution and recovery ambitions, would be levelling up in its most literal sense. Other regions with devolution packages, such as the west midlands, Greater Manchester and Teesside have more local powers and more powers to make a real impact. A package for the east midlands would equalise those things and bring us up to a level of equal opportunity with those other areas.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. It is great to hear the east midlands being debated in this House. As he knows, I am a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and we have been looking at the evolution of English devolution. Tomorrow we will be hearing from the excellent Ben Houchen and also Tracy Brabin. Last week we heard from Jamie Driscoll, the North of Tyne Mayor and Andy Burnham, who spoke about their experiences. Andy Burnham says that the entities that have been created can help to bring
“coherence to areas that may have felt a little disparate”.
In the context of the east midlands, does my hon. Friend agree that devolution or some sort of authority is the best thing that we can do to bring that region together and get the investment that we really need?
Ben Bradley
I thank my hon. Friend and Nottinghamshire neighbour for engaging in this debate. He is absolutely right, particularly when it comes to a region such as ours, which does not have that metro centre—an obvious urban hub. We are three cities, three counties with different spatial geographies, different transport links. We need that hub and connectivity to have a single vision for how we plan that across the region, otherwise we will all head off in our own different local directions and will not be able to make a coherent argument to Government. Such a hub is really important for that unity of purpose and delivering that investment.
The unprecedented financial, economic and social challenges facing our area require a more ambitious and dynamic response, which we cannot achieve operating within the status quo. A regional devolution of powers and resources is key to enabling us to be competitive, and ambitious for our people and places. The conditions created by a combined authority would enable us to pool sovereignty and capacity on an unprecedented scale.
The benefits could include a coherent, planned focus on delivery for our economy, a focus on achieving the greatest public value for residents and places, more efficient and effective spatial planning in the region, including transport, and dealing with some of the challenges that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) mentioned.
A unified approach, which would be more attractive to the Government, could work to make sense of the many complex structures that exist in our region—the midlands engine, strategic partners, councils, businesses and investors—bringing a clarity of purpose, strength through unity, and confidence to those who want to invest in our region. Councils could come together to create a mayoral combined authority. That body would complement the West Midlands Combined Authority to the west, the northern powerhouse to the north, and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to the south—in many ways we are the hole in the middle of the doughnut, without the powers that everybody around us seems to have.
Building on our excellence in high tech and advanced manufacturing companies, an east midlands authority could take the regional lead, for example by promoting action on climate change or carbon reduction to be a catalyst for our green economy and artificial intelligence industries of the future. Governance of the authority could be inclusive to provide strategic co-ordination of regional policy, with councils joining forces with industry, higher and further education, and wider public sector partners.
Across the three cities and counties of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire, there are 28 local councils. Through the levelling-up White Paper, there is an opportunity to lay down enabling legislation requiring the vast majority of councils, rather than all, to sign up to a combined authority, so that we can be confident of consensus for a new combined authority and move at pace. An alternative option could be to discuss and negotiate a geography for a mayoral combined authority that could incorporate all partners—the vast majority of local authorities within the region—that wanted to be part of it in the first instance, perhaps with a system of affiliation for others that might want to join. In short, there are options; much of the work and planning for them has been done, much of the documentation exists, and now is very much the right time to explore them.
An east midlands combined authority would create a single voice in the region. A clear and focused channel of communication would improve services to communities and generate additional gross value added, creating new jobs, supporting businesses and promoting radical public sector reform. It would give us localised powers to genuinely tackle inequalities in skills and health in a way that is bespoke and that fits with our communities. That cannot be done from Whitehall; it needs a local drive.
In the past, the Government have challenged the east midlands to work together, and there has been progress. Our new interim development corporation is working to generate nearly £5 billion a year of GVA for our regional economy, 4,500 homes and 84,000 net additional jobs. Transport for the East Midlands provides collective leadership on strategic transport issues, agreeing major investment priorities. There is joint work on strong political consensus across the region on a coherent vision for HS2 around Toton. Partners are working on a business case for an inland freeport, centred around East Midlands airport. We have secured two sites on the longlist for the STEP fusion programme. We are working together on developing defined economic corridors for the A46 and the A50, and partners are working across the region on our covid-19 response.
There are other great projects under way: the Space Park in Leicester, pioneering world-leading research and engineering in space technologies; work in Derby and Derbyshire on future fuels such as hydrogen in partnership with Toyota; and a recently announced partnership with Thomas Heatherwick to reimagine the future of Nottingham city in a post-covid world.
These examples demonstrate the huge potential and the collaboration happening across the region, but the current system is constraining. A combined authority would change that, giving a new mechanism for devolution, pan-regional determination of strategic priorities, dialogue with Government and a credible delivery partner. For all the many boards and bodies that we now have and all the work we are doing together, none has the financial clout or the legal powers to deliver. This is the next step that we need to take.
The initial priorities for the east midlands authority could include a strategic approach to working with industry on a zero-carbon future and full-fibre connectivity for the east midlands, establishing it as one of the most digitally enabled regions of the UK. It could manage a co-ordinated and targeted plan for transport infrastructure that supports our wider growth, particularly through delivering the benefits of HS2, the development corporation, the freeport and our wider spatial vision. It could help us to put together a skills system aligned to our region’s future economic landscape and in tune with the needs of our residents, with more people in employment in higher-skilled jobs, to support business growth and productivity and ensure that all our communities can benefit from that growth.
A joined-up east midlands-wide tourism, culture and heritage strategy could help us to showcase our region and its assets to the world, including our world-class destinations—the Peak district, Sherwood forest, Bosworth battlefield—our vibrant cities and our rich heritage. Bringing partners together in this way offers enormous potential to tackle the great challenges of our times, including climate change. We have begun that journey through initiatives such as the midlands engine 10-point plan for green growth, but there is much more that we can do by working together, pooling capacity, innovation and resources. We are famous for our invention and innovation and can become a world leader in green growth with the right incentives.
In summary, I believe that this is the right time to create a strongly governed east midlands combined authority. Any successful reform is a combination of strong central Government direction and locally led implementation. The current covid-19 crisis demonstrates that: the best of our response has been where central Government have provided the policy and local areas have implemented it. We know from our joint work on HS2, the development corporation and the freeport that there is latent potential for inward investment. The east midlands has a low level of private capital and now more than ever, with Government funds strained by covid, we need to attract investment to our region to fuel that recovery, growth and prosperity. We have so much to offer, and bringing our undoubted potential to the market in a unified and coherent way will pay dividends now and for future generations.
If the UK economy and society are going to move forward quickly, decisions must be made at the right level, freeing us up locally to work across wider areas and to get on with the job of securing growth and prosperity. I am asking the Government to look at this carefully, to work with local stakeholders in the region and to support us in trying to make it happen.
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) on securing this extremely important debate. He articulated his points passionately on behalf of his community, and I can certainly assure him that his ambition to secure a more prosperous future for the east midlands is shared in every corner of the Government.
I also take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his new role as leader of Nottinghamshire County Council. It is great to see such strong local leadership being provided, which we all recognise is essential to the mission of levelling up. He talked articulately about our passion and commitment to unlocking economic prosperity across all regions of the country, and that is absolutely right. It is why we have made levelling up and the levelling-up agenda a central part of our economic strategy. We plan to address the long-standing economic inequalities, delivering economic opportunity and improving lives and livelihoods up and down the country. Wherever someone was born and wherever they grow up, we believe that they should have an equal opportunity to get on in life, thrive and find the type of opportunity that they want in their life.
As the Prime Minister announced in May, our landmark levelling-up White Paper will be published later this year. It will set out and articulate bold new policies that will improve opportunity, support businesses and boost livelihoods across the country, including in Nottinghamshire and the east midlands. Levelling up is about providing the sort of momentum to address precisely the long-standing local inequalities that my hon. Friend articulated so clearly, providing the means for people to pursue life chances that previously had been out of reach for too many people in too many communities.
We are backing up these ambitions with considerable funding to help to unlock the investments most needed in our communities, particularly as we help local places to rebuild and recover from the pandemic. The White Paper will be a natural continuation of our commitment and support to local places, particularly building on the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund that we announced in the spending review. That fund is enabling local areas across the whole of the UK to invest in the type of infrastructure that improves everyday life. That could be regenerating town centres and high streets, upgrading local transport networks, and investing in cultural and heritage assets—exactly the kind of projects that my hon. Friend said are so urgently needed in towns and places in the east midlands.
We published the prospectus in March and explained how we are welcoming bids from all parts of the country, as everywhere has its local challenges, but we have also been clear about the areas of the country that have the highest category of need based on the fund’s priority themes of economic recovery, transport connectivity and regeneration. We have recognised the need in Nottinghamshire with three districts—Bassetlaw, Mansfield, and Newark and Sherwood—as well as the city of Nottingham being identified as category 1, so benefiting from that £125,000 of capacity funding to help them to work up bids for later rounds of the funds. In Derbyshire, Derby and the district of Chesterfield, Derbyshire Dales, Erewash and High Peak have been identified as category 1, along with the city of Leicester. Furthermore, we are recognising explicitly through the levelling-up fund prospectus the crucial role of Members of Parliament in championing the interests of their communities and understanding their local priorities.
Before turning to devolution, I want to mention the community renewal fund, which sits alongside the levelling-up fund and is enabling places to pilot new approaches, tackling the skills, employment and local business support challenges that are faced in different local communities. Ultimately, the UK community renewal fund will help us to pave the way for the introduction of the new UK shared prosperity fund from 2022, about which we will be saying more in an investment framework later this year.
It is important for local areas, councils and groups of communities to look at the dual opportunities of the levelling-up fund and the UK community renewal fund, which have the potential to complement each other extremely positively. Given that many places in Nottinghamshire and the east midlands are among the high-priority areas for UK community fund investment, and given the excellent work that east midlands councils have done in developing plans for more investment in the region, I have no doubt that they will be grasping the opportunities presented by both those important funds.
Nottinghamshire has submitted proposed sites for the STEP programme—an ambitious plan to design and construct a prototype energy plant—including the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station. In March it was announced that the east midlands freeport— based around East Midlands airport, the busiest cargo airport in the country—would be one of eight new freeports. We entirely recognise the scale of the opportunity that that presents for communities in the east midlands. The region’s connectivity to other freeports and the combination of an airport and a rail port create a distinctive offer in comparison with those of other freeports in England, and we are keen to see all partners working together constructively to deliver this for the east midlands.
I am pleased that our officials at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are currently assessing the proposal from the East Midlands Development Corporation, covering Ratcliffe-on-Soar, East Midlands airport and Toton. I commend the councils involved, including Nottinghamshire County Council, for maintaining the momentum and setting up a companies interim vehicle to show intent. I also note that only yesterday local partners met the Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), and engaged in productive discussions on progress to date as well as future plans. I understand that the excellent collaborative work of councils in developing these proposals has led to the formation of an Alchemy Board bringing together local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and universities. They are to be commended for working together. It is no surprise that given all this co-operation, consideration is now being given to what devolution should mean in the east midlands.
As I said earlier, the Prime Minister will publish a landmark levelling-up White Paper later this year, which will articulate the bold new policy interventions that will improve livelihoods as we recover from the pandemic. We have already made huge strides towards rebalancing the economy and empowering local government. That has been supported by our programme of devolution, one of the largest in recent decades, including nine mayoral devolution deals and one non-mayoral devolution deal in Cornwall. Forty-one per cent. of the country is now served by metro Mayors, and nearly £7.5 billion of investment funding is being unlocked over 30 years for those combined authority Mayors. That is already paying dividends, with Mayors delivering the programmes that local people want to see on the ground, accountable to the electorate and shaping local priorities.
We recognise that the country is large and diverse, and that what works for our city regions, particularly those with single-tier local authorities, might not be right for every part of the country. Our plans for further devolution will be included in the White Paper which we will launch later this year. Local support for governance changes is of course a key principle for us, and we will welcome proposals from areas for local government reorganisation where there is strong support. However, we appreciate that reform of an area’s local government is most effectively achieved through locally led proposals which are put forward by those who know the area and which have a good deal of support among the councils and stakeholders.
I wholly recognise the complexities of the east midlands, with its three unitary city councils, three county councils and 22 district and borough councils, but there are already clear signs of their willingness to work together. We want to help the area to build on that potential, and it will be extremely interesting to hear more about the proposals my hon. Friend has highlighted today to allow more decisions to be made locally to better serve residents. I welcome the discussions that he has begun, with vigour and passion, and I look forward to further discussions with him and other local leaders to hear how those proposals can be taken forward.
I am aware that Members and local leaders in other parts of the east midlands are also looking at locally appropriate solutions to help deliver levelling up, and I would very much welcome hearing more about that in due course as well. This is an extremely important area, and I think we can make progress working with my hon. Friend, and we will consider his proposals, which I look forward to discussing in more detail. I thank him for bringing this debate to the Chamber today, and we will certainly reflect on the points he has raised as we continue to pursue our levelling-up agenda right across the UK.
Despite the challenges of covid-19, ensuring that the whole country can benefit from the same opportunities remains a core part of our agenda. We will tackle geographical disparities in key services and outcomes across the UK, improving health, education and skills, increasing jobs and growth, building stronger and safer communities, and improving infrastructure and connectivity. We believe that all areas of the country should have the means to positively shape their own future. This is more important now than ever as we look towards the road of recovery. I look forward to working with Members of Parliament and local council leaders from the east midlands to ensure that we can deliver this for our country.
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) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
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) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
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 |
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
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 |
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 |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (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) | Wera Hobhouse |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
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) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | 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) | Ben Lake |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wera Hobhouse |
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) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
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 |
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba) | Kenny MacAskill |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John McNally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
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 |
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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) | Wera Hobhouse |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | 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 |
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (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) | Wera Hobhouse |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Draft Medical Devices (Coronavirus Test Device Approvals) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I thank Members for observing social distancing, and remind them that Mr Speaker has stated that face coverings should be worn in Committee unless Members are speaking or they are exempt. Hansard colleagues will be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. The eagle-eyed among you will have noticed that, because of the inclement—to a Yorkshireman—hot weather, if people wish to remove their jackets they are welcome to do so.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Medical Devices (Coronavirus Test Device Approvals) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Please excuse my opening line—this will be my second pun before 9.30 in the morning—but we live in testing times, literally and metaphorically. The covid-19 pandemic has been a test—for our NHS, for us as a nation, and for everyone. In order to fight the virus, we have had to endure restrictions, but the resolute determination that people have shown during lockdown demonstrates the best of the British character. The amazing performance of our NHS has shown why the UK is stronger united against any storm that may hit these isles. Though many trials have broken upon us, this has not broken us.
As we continue to open up society—spending time with friends and family once again, and enjoying pubs, clubs, football matches and horse-racing—we cannot become complacent about the virus; we must remain vigilant. We are reliant on everyone to protect each other from the virus, and to take responsibility for their health. One in three people with coronavirus show no symptoms and are potentially spreading it without knowing, so testing will remain vital to controlling and containing the spread.
Employers and others are keen to buy their own tests for their staff, to pitch in and do their bit and take pressure off the NHS. I want to empower them to do that, but that requires them to be able to use tests that are at least as good as those in the NHS. However, of 280 tests assessed by the Department of Health and Social Care for public procurement, only 50 were found to reliably detect the virus.
No one wants one bad test kit to reset a year of hard work by giving false negatives that cause people to unknowingly spread the virus once more. That is why we need a strong, independent validation system, with robust enforcement, to enable delivery of reliable, affordable and high-quality tests. First and foremost, any regulations should help protect public health. Strong yet agile regulation for covid-19 tests is essential to that end. As individuals and businesses take on more of a role in our testing effort, it will become a partnership between people, Government and the private sector, with independent validation underpinning trust and confidence in the testing market and remedying the current market failure, to the benefit of both consumers and producers.
It is vital that consumers have clear, comparable information that lets them cut through the confusion and buy with confidence. I want people to know that if they choose to buy tests, the ones available will be as good as those that they would receive on the NHS, so that they can trust the results that they get. That will empower people to take charge and make their own decisions about managing their personal health. This is a chance for producers to show what their tests can do through a fair and equitable system.
Some producers of tests have invested in these technologies in good faith, and feel that they have effective tests that they have successfully trialled with their own processes, but cannot seem to get them validated. Understandably, they question the Porton Down protocols and feel disappointed that they cannot join the procurement frameworks. I hear those concerns and share the frustration, but my message is that our validation processes are the most thorough in the world. Companies often question standards that they cannot meet, but we stand by those standards and will not buy tests that do not meet them. We work with firms to try to get them to the right standard. Patients and taxpayers would not thank us if we bought tests that did not perform to those standards. Self-certification by diagnostic firms is not an approach that has proved reliable during the pandemic.
This statutory instrument, which the Government have laid before Parliament, will establish a clear regulatory regime through which the Government will ensure that all tests on the UK market meet the performance standards set for the NHS. We have experience of validating tests for Government procurement; the regulations build on that expertise to create an agile regime that will validate all polymerase chain reaction and lateral flow tests that meet those standards. We are confident that this will enable the ongoing supply of high-quality tests to the UK market.
The regulations set clear performance thresholds, which provide rigorous yet fair criteria that industry will have to meet by undergoing an expert review. Manufacturers should see that as an opportunity to have their products tested, and to get feedback. It is an opportunity to have high-quality scientific advisers assess the product, and then to allow businesses to make it a race to the bottom, minimising costs while they take advantage of the pandemic to maximise their profits. We will publish a register of tests that pass validation, along with other information that is clear and comparable. Empowered by that information, consumers and companies can make informed and prudent choices when buying kits for themselves, their families or their workforce.
We intend the regime to recover its costs primarily from manufacturers, rather than being supported by taxpayers. However, I am conscious of the concerns raised during the consultation that fees set too high could be a barrier to small and medium-sized manufacturers entering the market. We firmly recognise the important, innovative contribution our small and medium-sized enterprises make. We have implemented a discount for such businesses, so that their dynamism, creativity and nimbleness continue to bring new tests to market to meet the changing needs of people and businesses.
Industry will require time to adapt to our new regulatory requirements. We have balanced the need to give industry reasonable time against the need to remedy the market failure. To strike this balance, I have instituted phased grace periods for those manufacturers who work with us. This will mean any tests already on the market will be able to remain there if the manufacturers do what is required of them. I have clearly set out that they have until 1 September 2021 to register their tests for the validation process.
They will then have until 31 October to complete and pass the process.
The diagnostic device manufacturers in the UK include a few big players, but 90% are small and medium-sized enterprises. We have implemented a discounted fee for them, so that they continue to bring new tests to market, and meet the changing needs of people and businesses. I am confident that any well-run company with a quality product can meet the lower fee of £6,400.
No one wants a regulatory wasteland, full of failed businesses, where we are entangled by distrust, disreputable weeds grow, and consumers have to beware with every step. Good regulation helps to ensure a well maintained garden where businesses thrive and blossom into success, where there is trust between buyers and sellers, and where consumers are safe to explore.
I do not see passing these regulations as the end; it is merely the beginning. I will add to the regulations later this year with a further laboratory stage, underpinned by a second statutory instrument. That will also provide an opportunity to consider emerging issues. Beyond that, my officials will continually engage with stakeholders to ensure that the process is as smooth as possible, and will conduct a review next year, which I will lay before the House. The review will provide recommendations on how to refine the regulations, and on what lessons we can learn to help bolster the diagnostic legacy of this pandemic.
The BMJ highlighted the importance of early diagnostics, and set out why we need a sea change to our approach to disease management once the pandemic passes:
“Poor diagnostic preparedness has contributed to significant delays in the identification of recent outbreaks for multiple pathogens, including Ebola, Lassa fever, yellow fever and Zika, primarily due to poor local diagnostic capacity. In the case of the 2013–2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa…postoutbreak analyses suggest that diagnosing 60% of patients within 1 day instead of 5 days could have reduced the attack rate from 80% to nearly 0%. In the end, it was diagnostics information coupled with appropriate interventions that led to eventual containment of the outbreak, but the delays resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and billions of dollars in the cost of response.”
It is clear that long-term benefits come from a thorough testing culture, and the challenge going forward is to deliver the latest innovations at affordable prices. I want our regulations to help manufacturers rise to this challenge, and to leave a diagnostic legacy that does not just improve our everyday health but makes us more resilient in dealing with winter flu and challenges in the decades ahead.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies, and to be part of the proceedings that make first use of a new power under the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021; it feels like a long time since we were sitting in a similar Committee Room debating that Act. I am grateful to the Government for the briefing session for Members of both Houses last week, in which we were able to ask a number of important questions.
High-quality testing is a crucial part of fighting coronavirus. Knowing who has it and who they have been in contact with, and supporting them and their contacts as they isolate themselves, is a core way of preventing transmission. Even as we start to reopen significant aspects of British life, that basic principle will remain with us for some time, so it is right that testing be put on a high-quality, properly regulated footing. While members of the public are not at direct risk from bad tests, the knock-on impact of a false positive or negative is serious, so we need to set up a regime that reduces the risk of that as much as possible. Of the 280 tests available, only 50 would pass the relevant standards. That is sobering, and good reason for us in this place to act. We therefore do not intend to divide the Committee, but I would like details from the Minister.
The explanatory memorandum describes the regulations as “urgent” action. We are some 16 months into this crisis, and the powers have been available under the 2021 Act for some months; is this the fastest the response could have been? When the regulations were considered in the other place earlier this week, there was a suggestion that the reason for the new-found urgency was that the Government wish to transition to a charging model of testing, rather than the current public health model in which tests are made widely available for free. Lord Bethell said that was not the case; I am hoping that the Minister will give the same commitment, and will say that free testing will be available after the regulations are approved next Monday, and while we deal with the current peak of infections.
The Minister talked about a partnership going forward. I understand that the Government cannot be expected to carry the entire burden indefinitely, certainly not for private entities, but what will that partnership look like for the rest of this year? Assuming that we do not lose free tests in the short or medium term, there is an expectation that we will start to see an increase in testing through the private route. I did not hear, in the Minister’s opening speech, assurances on how those tests will be linked to NHS Test and Trace. There is value in testing in and of itself—it lets individuals know whether they need to self-isolate—but the point of having a central system is that we can have surveillance around the virus, and critically we can seek contacts and get them to isolate, too. Will the obligation still be on the individual, and will there still be support from the state?
I asked this at the briefing but did not get a particularly detailed answer, so I will try again. On the fees regime, we support, of course, the discount for small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up the bulk of the market, as the Minister said. In general, though, that £14,000 figure seemed quite high, not to mention suspiciously rounded, for a full cost recovery model. Will she share the breakdown of the costs? If she does not have that information with her, perhaps she might put it in the Library, because there is interest in it.
The instrument allows the Secretary of State to exempt tests on a case-by-case basis to avoid supply issues for the NHS. However, tests procured by the Department of Health and Social Care or the NHS are exempt already, so why is that necessary? The main weakness of the 2021 Act was that it allowed too much regulation to be implemented or set aside at the stroke of a pen by a Minister acting as a Caesar, rather than as someone who is accountable to Parliament. There does not seem a lot of point in doing what we do, either downstairs or up here, if a Minister can later decide that they are not interested in a certain provision of a regulation or Act. That should be avoided as much as possible, and I cannot see its value in this case. I may be missing the point, but I hope the Minister will address that, or at least say what safeguards will be put in place, and what reporting there will be of the provision’s use.
In a growing market such as this, there will still be some who choose to break the rules, thinking it a route to quick profit. Presumably the enforcement will be for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Is it suitably resourced to tackle this in the short term, as it beds in? Will it have a specific team on it? Similarly, what will the fines regime look like, and will it compound for repeat offenders?
To finish where the Minister finished, the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), is fond—I wish he was not so fond—of saying that we are in an era of pandemics. I am not attracted to that characterisation, but as the Minister put it, disease management is something that, globally, we clearly have to get much better at. This may not be the last time that we deal with something like this. The points that she made on the management of the Ebola virus were very interesting. On future-proofing, how portable is this model for testing in future pandemics? Or will it hold merely for covid-19? Rather than waiting 16 months, we would be able to implement it much more quickly.
As I said, I do not intend to divide the Committee. I know that I have fired off a number of questions. I hope that, if the Minister does not have all the information today, she might be able to follow up in writing.
Ms Dorries
I was furiously trying to write down all the questions, because there were a lot in rapid succession. I am afraid I did not get them all down—the hon. Member was too fast.
Why now? I think I have said before to the hon. Member in Committee that we started at zero. We started with nothing—with no tests—when the global pandemic landed on our shores. It does not take a great deal of imagination to understand that we have been running to catch up, including by developing tests, Test and Trace, vaccines, isolation techniques and local management outbreak plans. The whole management of covid has been a mammoth effort.
The market is dominated by free tests from NHS Test and Trace, with the exception of tests for international travel. Obviously, there are exceptions. I am glad that the hon. Member noted what I thought was the most important part of my speech. There are other pandemic outbreaks that we can learn from, such as Zika, Ebola and yellow fever. The post-pandemic analysis shows us that if, in those examples, there had been more diagnostic post-pandemic testing, deaths could have been down to almost 0%. That is obviously where we need to move to. As we come out of the pandemic, we need to learn from the examples of pandemics of the past, and need testing that meets our high standards to be available to anyone or any organisation that needs or wants it. As I said, our standards are the highest in the world, and we will continue to maintain them.
Now is the time, coming out of the pandemic, when we need to put this in place, so that anyone or any organisation that wants to be additionally vigilant as we open up can be. The hon. Member asked me to confirm what Lord Bethell mentioned in a debate—I do not know when that was. Access to the NHS is part of the overall offer for individuals who want to access testing. However, businesses and private venues that want to put in place their own measures for the protection of their staff, for international travel and for opening up will also have access to tests.
I think the hon. Gentleman then asked another question; officials will have taken a note, and we will respond to him. On how we will ensure that test results are reported, it is a legal requirement that where a test is conducted by a testing provider, the result, whatever the outcome, be reported to Public Health England—or the UK health security agency, as it will be. This must be done within 24 hours, because covid is a notifiable disease; under the framework of that legislation, PHE has to be notified of any test result. We will know the results of those tests.
I am confident that the regulations are a proportionate and appropriate measure to ensure that all PCR and lateral flow tests available across the UK will, as I mentioned in relation to Porton Down, meet the same world-leading standard—a standard of which we should be proud. Being free to set our own regulations allows the UK to innovate, and to create agile yet strong regulations that can set new standards. Other countries will be watching how we do it. We have done it with vaccination; they will be watching how we manage post-pandemic, and how we manage testing. That new approach to regulation gives businesses seeking to enter the UK market the certainty they need, while providing strong safeguards for consumers.
British manufacturers and pharmaceutical research and engineering firms have led the way in the global effort to combat the virus, keeping the NHS supplied with kits, tests and medicines over the past year. The UK should be proud of how it has risen to the challenge of the pandemic. We have grown our diagnostics capability dramatically: we now have a total laboratory capacity of 6 million PCR tests. The Government have to date administered 214 million tests in total, delivering well over a million tests daily. The UK now has one of the largest diagnostics capabilities in the world.
We have also supported the growth of the private market through the accreditation of testing service providers. There are now more than 1,200 private providers of general testing, with the United Kingdom Accreditation Service administering the accreditation process. Regulating services is only half of the market; we must also regulate the goods side. We estimate that around 97 million CE-marked lateral flow device test kits reach the UK domestic market per week, and that capacity is growing. Because of that growth, it is important to get this regulatory regime in place now. We need to make sure the regulation is there to provide standards and to support growing markets, particularly in the arts and culture, and the workplace generally.
As we look forward to a future in which we can once again spend time with friends and family, enjoy the arts and sport, and work and shop as we once did, we must remain vigilant against the virus. It will still be there. We all have a part to play in keeping each other safe, and we have a duty towards our families, friends and colleagues. Testing is vital to that new paradigm. No one wants false negatives, which cause people unknowingly to allow the virus to spread. A mandatory validation scheme will not limit the supply of high-quality tests. Rather, the policy will ensure that poorly performing test kits that would not have helped our collective effort to combat covid-19 can be identified and removed from the market. They simply will not pass the test.
I regret that we are considering the regulations without an accompanying impact assessment and opinion. The timescales have meant that we have not yet been able to produce an IA with which the Regulatory Policy Committee is content. We continue to work with the RPC to ensure that we have a robust assessment of the impact for inclusion in the business impact target, although we accept that that assessment will come too late to have been of use in this debate. I am grateful to the RPC for the effort it has put into accommodating our timescales. We are working so thoroughly on the evidence and analysis for the IA, as the Government are clear that we want to be a world leader in agile regulation. This will likely encourage businesses to locate more research and/or manufacturing in the UK. It is clear that the regulatory regime that we are debating will provide only benefits for the safeguarding of public health, and certainty for businesses.
To some, this may seem a radical intervention in the market, but I am reminded of John Snow, the father of epidemiology. When the evidence is clear and change is needed quickly, radical action is no vice; it is a virtue. That change could be as simple as removing a pump handle, as Dr Snow did to prove that the source of cholera was in London’s water supply, or acting to ensure consistent standards that bring the best of business creativity to bear for the public good. This is the benefit of agile regulation. It does not force businesses on to particular paths of innovation, constraining them with costly rules that deter risk-taking. Instead, it adapts to keep consumers safe.
Having been on various Statutory Instrument Committees over the 17 months of the pandemic, I can say that this is one of the more positive SIs that I have had the pleasure to present, knowing as I do that it will bring about collective good and assist us with our post-pandemic preparedness.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Fisheries Act 2020 (Scheme for Financial Assistance) (England) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that we have moved to one-metre social distancing in general Committees, in line with the Chamber and Westminster Hall. Members should continue to sit only in the places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Fisheries Act 2020 (Scheme for Financial Assistance) (England) Regulations 2021.
The regulations were laid before the House on 15 June and will provide the long-term legal foundation for the payment of grants to the English seafood sector. They have been specifically designed to support the needs of the sector and give full control and accountability for the delivery of financial support. The Fisheries Act 2020 gives the UK full control of its fishing waters for the first time since 1973 and provides the legal framework for policies to be tailored to the needs of industry, while still protecting the marine environment. Now that we have left the European Union, this will ensure a more responsive and autonomous scheme that better supports our newly independent coastal status.
The regulations cover the payment of grants by the Marine Management Organisation to the seafood sector in England, and include the provisions and payment conditions that must be adhered to. One useful change that will be noted by certain members of the Committee is that recreational sea fishers will now be included. The instrument has been carefully developed to ensure that future grant schemes have the flexibility to meet new policies and the needs of the English seafood sector, as they change over time. The passing of this instrument will not make any significant policy changes to the scope of grant funding for the seafood sector, and will ensure that we are using regulations specifically designed to support the English seafood industry.
The fisheries and seafood scheme opened on 6 April 2021 to provide financial assistance to projects that enhance the marine environment and support sustainable growth in the catching, processing and aquaculture sectors. The scheme is currently operating under spending powers in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which, unlike this SI, does not set specific conditions on activity restrictions. This SI will provide a more detailed framework for the scheme to operate within and give applicants and administrators more certainty about the legal status of the scheme.
The scheme will provide £6.1 million of funding in England for the current financial year. In the short term, that will help to provide stability and continuity to the industry by supporting businesses to take advantage of opportunities outside the EU. In the longer term, the scheme will drive meaningful change to increase sustainability, provide world-class fisheries management, and deliver a decarbonised sector and a thriving marine environment. The scheme has been very much improved by those who work in the fishing industry, with whom we have worked closely. The opening of the scheme has been welcomed and demand has been high.
These regulations expand previous domestic fisheries funding powers to ensure a more responsive scheme that better supports our seafood sector. This support is vital to deliver our vision for clean, healthy, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas, and I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the massed hordes of Labour MPs in this Committee today.
This is a really important SI. The Minister will know, because we were in the same debate on fisheries policy yesterday, just how betrayed and let down fishing feels because of the poor Brexit deal—the promises that were made and the breaking of those promises. That is why these types of SIs must be got right, and their implementation must be got right as well. We know that British fishing has been sold out by the Government. In the last few months we have seen our distant water fleet tied up, shellfish rotting at the ports, unable to be exported, and EU boats catching non-quota species basically unchecked, with no real time data-sharing arrangements in place due to a botched deal between the Government and the EU.
Fishing really is crying out for help, which is why it is important that this SI is adequate and properly resourced and, importantly, that the correct decisions are made as a result of it. We support a well-resourced and well-managed fund for the fishing industry to get the vital support it so desperately needs. We will not stand in the way of passing this instrument today, but I have some questions for the Minister that I hope she will be able to answer. The questions express not so much my personal concern, but the concerns of fishers whom we have spoken to in advance.
The instrument will give powers to the MMO to administer payments to fishers. For some fishers that is causing anxiety, and I will explain to the Minister why that is the case. It largely relates to concerns about the transparency and openness of decision-making processes that have been undertaken over the past year. The Minister and I probably share a desire for greater openness and transparency, and I hope that she will reflect that in discussions with the MMO when she looks at implementing the SI in due course. The SI will give the MMO more powers to set schemes, approve payments, and revoke, suspend or even reclaim money. That is all without a proper duty under the SI to convey the reasons to the applicants, let alone an open and transparent process or an independent appeals process.
The SI will hand powers to the MMO without any indication of how its decisions will be scrutinised, how fishers can appeal bad decisions or how the decision makers will be held to account. Can the Minister outline what scrutiny will be in place for MMO decisions after an award of funding or a rejection of an application? Can she tell us what the appeals process will be for fishers if the MMO gets decisions wrong, or a decision has been taken on incorrect grounds?
We know all too well that things can go wrong when DEFRA throws cash into its menagerie of non-departmental public bodies. Last year’s domestic seafood supply scheme handed out hundreds of thousands of pounds to companies, some of which had huge reserves, running into millions of pounds in some cases. The great concern is what will happen to our small-scale fishers. The Minister and I have had many debates, in this room and elsewhere, about the desire to focus on small-scale fishers. Labour’s view is that our small fishers are the backbone of our fleet and deserve the lion’s share of attention from Ministers. However, the funding has not always followed that in the past year. As the Minister said, the SI does not set out any significant changes in regulations or policy, but that is why fishers are concerned that it will reinforce the present situation, in which larger fishing businesses, including foreign-owned fishing businesses, receive the greater share and smaller fishing businesses, for whom support and intervention can have a more profound positive effect, will be overlooked.
Some fishers were concerned about the openness and transparency of the process in the past year, how decisions were taken, who sat on the panels taking the decisions, and what interests they took in with them. It is important that we have industry representatives assisting the MMO to make decisions, but there should be a focus on ensuring that those industry representatives are representative of the whole fishing sector—because as the Minister knows, there are dozens of different fishing industries, catching different species in different locations, with different gear set up very differently—and also on ensuring that there is always a voice for small fishers on decision-making panels. There should be a space reserved for them. The smaller fishers associations are not as well resourced as the larger ones, and I appreciate that availability may be an issue, but the Minister should task the MMO to ensure that, regardless of the issue being debated or the applicants, there is a seat for a small fisher to help to inform the decisions that are being taken.
Some fishers have told us about their concerns that some of the organisations that received money last time had connections, through membership bodies, to some of the people on the panel. I do not wish to suggest that any decisions were made improperly, but we must ensure that the sense is that all decisions are beyond reproach and are made wisely. We know, sadly, that some recipients of past funding were at risk of being struck off at Companies House for late filing. Some had not even set up their companies after the application was submitted, and some of the projects given funding had been planned before the pandemic hit. How does the Minister feel the decision-making processes have gone to date, and can any enhancements to scrutiny and openness be provided for with the additional powers in these regulations?
The Minister will know, because I mentioned it yesterday, that the Seafarers UK report, which is a good one, stated that most small-scale fishers have little or no savings or financial resilience, and that was before the start of the pandemic. That places a greater onus on decision makers to ensure faster processing and a greater focus on applications from small-scale fishers, many of whom will not be able to access the professional bid writing support that is available to larger organisations. Making sure this works is really important. We need proper transparency in these decision-making processes and proper reporting.
Earlier I briefly mentioned the appeals process. I would be grateful if the Minister set out where in this SI there is scope for an appeals process. My understanding is that the only provision anywhere close to that is regulation 8, on decision and notification, which says:
“The Marine Management Organisation must…decide whether to approve an application unconditionally, to refuse or reject it”
and to
“notify the applicant of the decision made under sub-paragraph (a).”
I want to see applicants notified of decisions, but I also want to understand what happens when decisions are wrong, or where a decision might have been made incorrectly, on the basis of a different interpretation of the evidence before the MMO. There does not seem to be any scope for appeals in the process. That does not sit right with me, and I hope it does not sit right with other members of the Committee, who I think would want to know that there can be an appeal in the event of a decision being made incorrectly.
That is especially important for small-scale fishers, who by and large do not specialise in bid writing and appeal writing. They are professional fishers; they are really good at that, but not necessarily at completing all the forms. Certainly, that is much of the feedback that I have had when speaking to fishers in Plymouth about this, so I would be grateful if the Minister set out what the appeals process is. If there is not an appeals process in the SI, could one be added subsequently, albeit on an informal basis, or brought back in a future SI? We certainly have a lot of them that could assist in updating this area.
I am grateful that the Minister set out in her opening remarks that there is support available for recreational fishers. The hon. Member for North Cornwall and I share much in common in our support for recreational fishing, which is a significant part of our fishing industry in the south-west. It has potential for huge growth if appropriate decisions are taken to provide support in catching species—the Minister will know that I am keen, as the hon. Gentleman is, to see a catch-and-release fishery for Atlantic bluefin tuna, rather than the catch-and-eat fishery, to preserve these amazing marine species—and also to ensure a focus on decarbonisation, not only of recreational fishing boats but of commercial fishing boats too.
The Minister mentioned in her remarks yesterday that there are three pillars in the new fisheries fund announced by the Prime Minister when the deal was announced just before Christmas. One pillar will be about environmental performance and sustainability. I would be grateful if she expanded ever so slightly on that, because there is a real opportunity to decarbonise, moving from the heavy, thirsty, diesel engines that we have in the fishing fleet, towards electric and hydrogen propulsion. If the Minister has any time over the summer, I hope she will head to Plymouth to see the world’s first electric ferry, as a testbed for marinised battery technology, which can be scaled up to provide an alternative to many diesel engines. I would be grateful if she could again set out the three pillars for the sake of transparency.
Mr Twigg, you may know that I am not a fan of some of the wording of impact assessments, because I say it in every SI Committee—I hope the Minister will forgive me for having to hear it again. Page 3 of the explanatory memorandum says:
“There is no, or no significant, impact on business”
from this SI. First, those are two different things: either there is no impact or there is an impact. Secondly, if there is no impact on businesses, what is the point of this SI at all? The entire point of this statutory instrument is to provide financial assistance for fishing businesses, yet the Minister’s own impact assessment says there is “no, or no significant, impact on business”. Both of those cannot be right, so either we are wasting our time here today, passing legislation that will not have an impact to look busy, or the Minister has got the impact assessment wrong. I would be grateful if she set out which of those it is, because it cannot be both. There is either an impact or there is not. If there is not, we are all wasting our time and missing an opportunity to support our brilliant fishers around the coast.
I want to see proper support for our fishing industry and, as I made clear in the debate yesterday, a proper debate on the Floor of the House, when we come back after recess, to provide robust scrutiny ahead of any annual negotiations. I invite the Minister to look at whether fisheries support schemes need to be flexed in conjunction with the annual negotiations, because the annual negotiations will adjust the available quota for different species around the coast. That will have a knock-on and sometimes immediate effect on the financial viability of certain businesses, particularly if their quota goes down. Whether there is a moment to align some of the support mechanisms with the annual negotiations is the type of a constructive suggestion that Members on both sides of the House will be able to make in a beefed up annual fisheries debate on the Floor of the House. I hope that she will support that.
As it stands, we will not oppose the SI, but I have some questions, in particular about appeals and the impact assessment, that I hope the Minister will be able to answer.
Victoria Prentis
I must have been in a different debate yesterday. I heard concerns and difficulties that had arisen in these very difficult 18 months during the pandemic, when many of our markets have not been open to us in the fishing sector, but I also heard tales of hope and optimism about domestic sales, for example, which have gone up 11% in the last year, and hopes for the future from around the country.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not detailing improper behaviour in previous schemes. He was careful to say that he was not, but then he also referenced some instances that would have been less than perfect had they been completely accurate. If there are specific concerns about the operation of previous schemes, I very much want to know about them, please. I ask him to write to me very soon and I will take them up with the MMO.
Victoria Prentis
This is a new scheme; the appeals process, however, is being carried forward from previous schemes. I have been assured by the MMO that appeals will be dealt with separately from the original claim processes. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know more about it, probably the best thing that I can refer him to is the guidance on gov.uk relating to the scheme. I may also be able to set his mind at rest by explaining that the scheme will be delivered by the MMO. Applicants can apply using an online application system. There will be competitive funding routes delivered throughout the financial year, which ought to help on his annual negotiations point. That will enable us to flex the importance of certain policy areas.
We think that introducing a competitive approach to some of the funds will deliver value for money and implement the funding values outlined in the Cabinet Office guidance and Her Majesty’s Treasury’s managing public money principles, all of which have to be read together, to look at the background for the scheme. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the scheme is available to applicants whose businesses, or vessels, are registered in England. Individuals can apply. Those who are engaged in commercial or recreational sea fishing, or agriculture or processing, can apply, as can a public body, university or research institute. Indeed, new entrants are very strongly encouraged to apply.
It may help if I give some examples of those to whom the fund has already been granted, because I think that will ease the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the inshore fleet, which he speaks about very passionately. One example is deck improvements to reduce injuries at sea, which I know is dear to his heart. Some money was granted to improve crew health and safety, with non-slip decking, upgraded deck hatches and safety railings. Another grant was given to food hygiene standards premises for the purchase of lobster storage tanks, fridges and freezers, and a shellfish boiler, which will add significant value to catches and enable the fishermen to sell directly to the public. That is the sort of scheme that is currently being considered.
The hon. Gentleman referenced the £100 million investment that the Prime Minister announced. That funding is completely separate, and in addition, obviously. The £100 million scheme is being developed to complement other financial support available to the UK seafood sector. I gave some details yesterday on the three pillars. I reassure the Committee that further details on the £100 million fund will be made available very soon, certainly this summer. We will concentrate on the science and innovation pathway first.
This instrument will provide a long-term legal foundation to deliver the payment of grants to the English seafood sector. It has been specifically designed for that purpose and will ensure that we have full control and accountability of the fisheries and seafood scheme. I am pleased that it includes recreational fishing, and I look forward to continuing to work with members of the Committee on a catch-and-release scheme for bluefin tuna. The instrument is key to delivering the Government’s manifesto commitments and securing a thriving and sustainable marine environment. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) and Biofuel (Labelling) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to observe social distancing and sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee other than when speaking or if exempt. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Before I call the Minister, I remind hon. Members that 17 Members were appointed to the Committee, so we should not really be having to wait for people to turn up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) and Biofuel (Labelling) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The statutory instrument would introduce E10 as standard petrol across Great Britain, while ensuring that the current E5 grade remains available for those who need it. E10 petrol contains up to 10% renewable ethanol—double the amount that can be blended in today’s E5 grade. This change is a crucial step to maximising the biofuel blending capacity in the UK fuel market, driving transport decarbonisation while supporting the UK’s biofuel and agricultural sectors.
Introducing E10 allows us to cut carbon emissions from cars, motorbikes and other petrol-powered equipment in use today simply by increasing the limit to which renewable fuel can be blended into standard petrol. It is one of the very few measures available to us today with an immediate impact, providing the basis for a step change in renewable fuel blending. E10 petrol is a proven fuel that is already used across the world, including across Europe and the United States. We also have a valuable domestic bioethanol industry that would benefit from increased demand. Indeed, following our policy announcement, one large facility operator has already announced that it is recommencing production.
Such facilities play significant roles in their local economies, employing hundreds of skilled workers directly and supporting thousands of jobs in the wider community. That community includes the agricultural sector, with locally grown feed wheat used to produce ethanol, while by-products such as animal feed are supplied to livestock farmers in place of soy imports. It is vital to support those industries as we endeavour to build back greener, with low-carbon industrial hubs crucial to our path towards net zero by 2050.
Introducing E10 is part of a wider set of measures to encourage renewable fuels. We announced today ambitious plans to increase renewable fuel targets under the renewable transport fuel obligation, alongside our transport decarbonisation plan. Renewable fuel targets have risen over the past three years, with fuel suppliers now blending very close to the 7% biodiesel limit for road diesel and the 5% bioethanol limit for standard petrol. The draft regulations will unblock additional capacity to increase blending in the fuels that we all use every day, with only a short transition period. Although other renewable fuels will also be required to increase carbon savings in the medium to longer term, moving to E10 is the only immediately viable next step.
Although 95% of all petrol vehicles can use E10, some older vehicles cannot. That is why the instrument includes provisions to keep the current E5 petrol available in the higher octane super grade. Together with wider exemptions for some remote areas, that ensures that petrol suitable for every vehicle will remain available across the country. We also launched a comprehensive communications campaign, involving local radio, roadside posters, social media and information at forecourts. That informs motorists of the changes to petrol this summer and directs vehicle owners to our online compatibility checker, ensuring that everyone can be clear on the right fuel for their vehicle or equipment.
The SI also makes amendments that are required following our departure from the European Union. We have replaced references to EU legislation with references to domestic legislation to ensure the ongoing operability of our fuel standards. In proposing the statutory instrument, the Department has carefully considered a balance of interests. It recognises the need to maximise our efforts to decarbonise vehicles on the road today and support our domestic renewable fuel industry, while maintaining access to a suitable petrol grade for all. I believe that introducing E10 petrol this September ahead of RTFO increases planned for January strikes that balance, and I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It was the last Labour Government who introduced the RTFO, which helped to support the UK’s biofuel industry and lower emissions by introducing E5 fuel as an obligation for fuel suppliers, but obviously times have moved on, and the RTFO is in desperate need of reform. For example, I have just been talking to the maritime industry about how it can be reformed for that sector.
The Government have for a long time indicated their intention to move towards E10, so today should in theory be something to celebrate. However, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that what we have in front of us is only a minimum requirement on suppliers to move to 5.5%. The ambition is E10, but the obligation is much less; it is not really an E10 obligation. I really do not see why the Government are being so unambitious on this, particularly when the majority of responses to their own consultation called for greater ambition.
I know that the Government have claimed that they will review the policy in five years, but given that we have the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles coming in, now is the window to make real progress on the fossil fuels that are being used in cars, not in five years’ time, when hopefully many car owners will have made the transition to electric. That would be my question to the Minister: why leave it to suppliers to decide whether they will embrace the upper limit of 10% blended biofuels? Also, at what point does she see E5 petrol being phased out?
Does the Minister acknowledge that this will not work unless we have greater transparency in the supply of biofuels? She talked about supporting biofuel production in this country, and the use that various agricultural by-products could be put to, but we know that there will still be imports, and we have real concern about the source of many imported biofuels. Research from Transport and Environment has shown that nearly half of what was described as used cooking oil supplied to the UK last year came from China and Malaysia. Guarantees were not really in place that that oil was genuinely waste oil, and not products that were produced just for use in transportation or diverted away from other uses. We do not want to see that. We want to see waste products used.
We could be fuelling overseas deforestation through a demand for biofuels from supply chains that are not sufficiently transparent. Obviously, that would severely undermine any emissions savings from blending biofuels. There is no point in trying to move towards more sustainable petrol if we are contributing to destroying the Amazon rainforest in the process. I would therefore welcome clarification from the Minister on what plans the Government have to monitor that, to ensure that supply chains for imported biofuels are fully transparent and not linked to deforestation. That is not addressed in today’s legislation.
We need to move beyond a primary focus on biofuels when it comes to the RTFO. Many nations across Europe have taken the step of supporting the inclusion of renewable electricity in similar mechanisms, but the UK is yet to follow suit. I have not seen the transport decarbonisation plan yet. It is rather surprising, given that the statement is about to be made in the House, that when I went to the Vote Office earlier I was told that it would not be available until the Minister sits down. It seems odd to me that we can have a statement discussing a transport decarbonisation plan before people have been able to see it. Quite a lot of outside organisations seem to have obtained an advance copy, so it is a bit frustrating that MPs cannot. I hope that there is something in it on this issue.
The inclusion of renewable electricity in a reformed RTFO would bring many benefits, including securing sustainable funding streams for charge point operators. At the moment, low local authority take-up for Government grants for public charge points has shown the flaws in Department for Transport’s approach to expanding our charging network. The current system of incentives, with short-term support for charge points that offer little financial return, such as those in areas where they will not get much use and there is little chance of the operators being able to recoup money from users, is just not delivering the nationwide network of charge points that we need. They will be concentrated in the urban areas with high use. Reforms to the RTFO could be one way to address that, and I would welcome the Minister clarifying whether her Department is considering expanding the scope of the RTFO after today.
The Government need to be bolder and work to make the RTFO fit for the future. The shift to electric vehicles has to be considered as part of that. More urgently, it needs to be done in a way that ensures that any direct or indirect deforestation is stamped out in our supply chains. With those points in mind, Labour will abstain today on the basis that the SI does nothing to address concerns about overseas deforestation in imported biofuel supply chains, does not deliver on the much needed broader reform to the RTFO, and is deeply unambitious when it comes to the blending obligation on fuel suppliers.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. It is a shame that she is abstaining, but nevertheless we will push forward with our ambitious plans, because this is a major step along the way to our world-leading plans to decarbonise the entire transport sector. I am very happy to have a detailed discussion with her about some of the issues that she raised, but I assure her that some of the comments that she made about deforestation are wide of the mark.
Let me turn to the detail. The hon. Lady mentioned the percentage allowed in E10. As I am sure she is aware, the existing industry standard for E10 allows for an ethanol content between 0% and 10%. By setting a 5.5% limit in legislation we ensure that the fuel blend will contain more renewable ethanol than existing blends and has to be marketed as E10, levelling the playing field across the sector. Bioethanol blending will be driven by the RTFO, as she referenced, which sets targets for overall biofuel supply. We therefore expect bioethanol to be blended at levels higher than 5.5%, particularly following the increase of targets.
The hon. Lady mentioned sustainability. We have one of the most robust set of measures in the world to ensure that our fuels are sustainable and do not have any adverse consequences, such as those that she referenced. Waste-derived biofuels make up over two thirds of renewable fuel supplied under the RTFO, and the share of biofuels from feedstocks associated with a high risk of leading to indirect land use change, including deforestation, in particular oilseeds such as palm, soy or rapeseed, is minimal in the UK. Our crop cap is in fact one of the tightest in Europe. It is currently set at 4% and will decrease to 2% by 2032.
The hon. Lady mentioned some of the issues around charging infrastructure. I assure her that the transport decarbonisation plan will be available to view on gov.uk. I am informed that it will be uploaded within the next few minutes, or very shortly. I very much hope that it will be there. When she reads it, I am sure that she will have many questions, and I am happy to answer them all. I remind her that our electric vehicle charging infrastructure network is out of scope for today’s debate, but it is increasing by 10% year on year. We already have one of the largest networks of charging infrastructure on the strategic road network in Europe, and it is increasing at a rate of knots.
I thank the hon. Lady for her consideration of these points. This is a small but very important step. As we transition to zero-emission vehicles, it is vital that we do not ignore the measures available to us today to reduce emissions. The SI does that by doubling the amount of renewable fuel that can be blended. It supports our vital domestic carbon industry. Securing such facilities will help to foster new investment and secure many jobs to build a world-class renewable fuel sector in the UK, so it is a shame that Labour is not supporting new jobs in parts of the country where this is a new industry. This measure is part of wider policy proposals to reduce emissions. Timing is very important. We need to ensure that we can roll this out in as smooth a way as possible before the increases to our renewable fuels targets in January. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the statutory instrument.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Town Deals: Covid-19 Recovery
(3 years, 4 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
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
Good morning. I remind hon. Members participating, virtually and physically, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Town Deals and covid-19 recovery
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.
For too long, towns across the country have been in decline. Once bustling with shoppers and visitors, they have become blighted by high levels of deprivation, a lack of opportunity, and empty shops, leaving a chasm, where there was once aspiration, for entire communities, particularly across the north of England. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to levelling up and unleashing the economic potential of towns across the country.
In the course of this Parliament, the towns fund will invest £3.6 billion across our country in communities such as Southport, Barrow-in-Furness, Blackpool, Norwich, Darlington and many more. It will help to reshape and unleash the economic potential of 101 towns through regeneration, connectivity, skills and culture. This funding also includes the future high streets fund, which aims to renew town centres and high streets to make them more attractive places to visit, thereby increasing footfall, driving growth and supporting local businesses. That is exactly what Lord Street, in my constituency, and other parts of Southport need.
The pandemic has kept people away from the high street. Although more people shopping online is nothing new, restaurants have also adapted to a new model of working. People are eating takeaways and restaurant meals at home and they are shopping online. As convenient as that is, and as good as the hospitality sector in Southport has been at adapting, there is a real fear that hospitality and retail will suffer as we come out of the pandemic, because people’s shopping and leisure habits will have changed remarkably. In tourist economies such as Southport, that is not an insignificant thing. That is why we need to think differently about town centres and make them a destination, thereby giving people a real reason not only to visit but to spend money and to make return visits.
Town deals provide a meaningful avenue to rebuild many communities across the country as we emerge from the pandemic. That is why I very much welcome the bid submitted by my constituency: it has the potential to drive forward growth and investment and to create opportunity. I want to illustrate the benefits of the towns fund by informing hon. Members about how it will benefit Southport.
Let me explain for those who may be unfamiliar with my constituency that Southport is a coastal town in the north of England with a large tourism and hospitality sector. Its high street, Lord Street, was the inspiration behind the tree-lined boulevards of Paris today, including the Champs-Élysées. Today, however, Southport faces many of the issues that sadly are common in many northern towns that have missed out on decades of regeneration. Those who come to Southport will see the grandeur of what it once was, but sadly with a rising number of empty shops and marred by an increasing number of takeaways and vaping shops. We have improvements in educational standards, large-scale investment coming in and hundreds of new homes being built, but the town centre, like others across the country, looks like it needs support.
We started with £1 million of accelerated funding for shovel-ready projects: £900,000 was used to rejuvenate the market hall as a state-of-the-art facility with an innovative approach to dining—it opens next week—and a further £100,000 to create a “boulevard of light” on Lord Street. That, combined with securing a £37.5 million investment in my town overall, is allowing us to unlock our economic potential.
I pay tribute to Rob Fletcher, chair of the Southport town deal board, and to all those who have served on it, including the council executive member and officers, local businesses, leaders in health and education, and the consultant Turley. I also serve on the board, and that is what makes the towns fund different: not only do the Government believe in the economic potential of these towns, but Members have been invited to be directly involved with the projects and personally associated with the submissions. Together with stakeholders across my constituency, I have lobbied and supported the bid from day one.
The funding will see £30 million invested to create a new theatre, conference and eventing centre on the waterfront and a business incubator space, bringing highly skilled, highly paid jobs back to our town centre. The Southport town deal bid will help our town rebuild its reputation as the premier tourist destination of the north-west and allow us to attract millions of new visitors and business delegates. It has the potential to unlock £350 million of investment in our local economy. That is why the towns fund is so important. It is not just a spend; it is a true investment.
Key to the success of the deal is the private sector contributing many more millions into the local economy. Although I welcome Southport’s receiving such significant investment, town deals alone cannot solve the problem of dwindling town centres. Towns must change. I would like to say three things about that, and I shall say them very briefly as I know others wish to speak.
First, I want to raise with the Minister the issue of business rates, which are a significant barrier to businesses, particularly small businesses, in my constituency. Many of the buildings that stand empty in Southport today are large heritage buildings that are too big and too expensive to maintain; many businesses simply cannot afford the rising costs associated with their upkeep. If town centres are to resemble anything like what they once were, or even to adapt to the new normal, the Government must overhaul the business rates system and make it easy for businesses to open up in town centres. That would help to reward innovation and risk.
Secondly, I want briefly to mention parking charges. Local authorities have a role to play in creating change, encouraging investment and bringing people back to our town centres. It is extraordinary that, in this day and age, councils still take a short-sighted approach to parking. Local residents cannot travel into their own town centres and support small businesses without facing exorbitant charges or receiving penalties. They should be able to do so. Local authorities, including Sefton Council, should enable that to happen as soon as possible. They should incentivise shopping, as they do in many other towns—for example, Lytham, across the Ribble estuary, provides a period of free parking. My constituents want the same.
Thirdly, connectivity has a huge role to play in ensuring that towns can attract a greater number of visitors. That gives me an opportunity to once again raise with the Minister two important pieces of rail infrastructure that are critical if the Government are serious, as I believe they are, about levelling up towns across the country: the maintenance of a direct rail service to Manchester Piccadilly and the reopening of the Burscough curves, connecting my town with the northern corridor via Preston. If our economy is to bounce back strongly, the Government need to do more to ensure that towns, particularly coastal towns, are not disconnected from major rail networks. Connecting my constituency to Manchester and Preston is just as important to levelling up as are faster trains to London.
I recognise that, over the last year and a half, the Government have spent a total of £400 billion on measures to help our economy recover from the pandemic. In particular, I welcome the levelling-up fund, the furlough scheme, the business rates holiday, bounce back loans, new recovery loans, the self-employment income support scheme and the cut to VAT—and who in the tourism and hospitality sector could forget the eat out to help out scheme, which was a real lifeline for many constituents and businesses in Southport?
I have reason to be optimistic for Southport as we emerge from the pandemic. We have submitted a bid to the restoring your railway fund to reopen the Burscough curves. The major department store Beales has announced that it will return to our high street in August, its third reopening after those in Poole and Peterborough. Southport will get its own version of the London Eye, thanks to Pleasureland owner Norman Wallis. I look forward to Southport Cove being built and the £40 million investment it will bring and the jobs it will create. Despite not being in Manchester, it was ranked among the 15 projects to look forward to in Manchester by the Manchester Evening News. Our £37.5 million town deal, the second largest allocation in the country, is a testament to how right they are and to how much town deals can drive growth and investment. The Government are laying the foundations that will improve the chances for many in the future.
The Government are unlocking the full potential of towns and communities by giving them the support that they need to thrive. Given that the fund was announced at a time when the Government were tackling an unprecedented health crisis, that is particularly welcome. Some might have been forgiven for saying that the Government should have paused or slowed down and focused on the pandemic. Others might have encouraged a complete cessation of the deal. The Government have been giving hope and optimism to places such as Southport by helping communities build back better as we overcome the pandemic.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) on securing this important debate.
It is vital that we level up areas left behind by rampant regional inequalities and a decade of austerity. My constituency of Leicester East suffers from structural disadvantages compared with wealthier areas of the country. The average weekly income for full-time employees in Leicester East is £420. That is £130 a week less than the east Midlands as a whole and £160 less than the UK average. The proportion of people claiming unemployment benefits is also higher in my constituency than it is at the regional and national level, as is the rate of food bank use, which has worsened during the pandemic.
I fear that the town deals will not address those severe inequalities. Indeed, the policy has faced repeated accusations of cronyism, gerrymandering and prioritising funding for Conservative-supporting areas. More than 80% of the towns set to receive Government funding through the £3.6 billion town fund are represented by Conservative MPs. Among the 86 towns that have had funding deals agreed so far, 72 are Conservative-held, five are in areas with both a Conservative and a Labour MP, and just nine are in Labour-held seats. That means that so far £1.6 billion-worth of investment has been signed off in Conservative constituencies compared with just over £200 million in seats held by Labour.
The process of selection and the criteria used by the Government have come under scrutiny, with both the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office producing reports that were critical of the lack of transparency and impartiality. Rather than the 100 towns with the highest score being selected, it was decided that the highest priority towns in each region would be eligible by default, with Ministers then free to choose from the others regardless of their need, so some towns that scored very high on need lost out. For instance, my community in Leicester is one of the most deprived areas of the country, yet we were not eligible for funding, so it is hard to escape the conclusion that the towns fund is a vehicle for political corruption that uses the rhetoric of combating regional inequality to mask its nefarious party-political intentions.
Similar concerns exist about the Government’s levelling-up fund. Among 93 English regions placed in the priority group of three tiers to receive money from the £4.8 billion fund, 31 are included while not ranked as being in the top third most deprived places by the average deprivation score. Of those 31, 26 are entirely represented by Conservative MPs, with the others having at least one Conservative MP. Four places are in the uppermost level for funding despite being ranked in the bottom third of English regions by the deprivation score. All those areas have Conservative MPs, including Richmond (Yorks), the Chancellor’s constituency, which is among the top fifth of the most prosperous places in England according to the average deprivation score. That raises severe concerns that the levelling-up fund and the towns deals are not designed to address regional inequality, but instead are designed to benefit the Conservative party.
To assuage those concerns, I urge the Minister to publish the funding metric as a matter of urgency. I would also be grateful if he confirmed how much of the towns fund and the levelling-up fund is really allocated funding, and how much is repurposed funding that was already covered by previous initiatives.
I fear that there is a dangerous pattern emerging with the Government’s strategy. After 10 years of devastating austerity, they are now turning on the taps of public spending in areas that are electorally convenient for them. We cannot allow this hugely cynical pork barrel politics to continue. It is gravely damaging not only for neglected communities across the country, but for the health of our democracy. We need a bold, nationwide and internationalist recovery from coronavirus, including a radical green new deal to rebuild the country with a more just and sustainable economy. Instead of this damaging agenda in which only certain areas are allocated funding based on whether it benefits the governing party, we desperately need a recognition that in our country of deep and unequal wealth, the top 1% should be asked to contribute a bit more in order to fund the services that the entire country relies on.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) on securing the debate. I enjoyed his speech, but there was one notable omission. He did not mention Southport’s most famous son, Red Rum, who lived in a stable behind a garage. He cured his ills on the beach and won three grand nationals from there. Hopefully, that will be remembered in Southport’s towns deal.
Lowestoft has its own towns deal, which will play a key role in the post-covid recovery and in transforming the town, making it a compelling place to live in, work in and visit. The town investment plan was produced with the Lowestoft place board, on which I sit, under the chairmanship of Stephen Javes, and special thanks must go to the officer team at East Suffolk Council, who are now hard at work in turning an exciting vision into a compelling reality. In many ways, covid has accelerated processes of change in our towns that were under way in any case, but it has hit Lowestoft particularly hard, and the immediate challenge that we face is to get people back into the town, where there are so many independent businesses offering bespoke and special products and experiences. That is the objective of the Bouncing Back campaign, which is being promoted by the Lowestoft Journal and East Suffolk Council.
There is also a need for private landlords to play their role in coming forward with realistic rents and lease expectations that properly take into account current market conditions. We need to step off the unseemly not-so-merry-go-round whereby tenants, full of expectation, sign leases with the benefit of a rent-free period. When that ends, they find their businesses unable to sustain an unrealistically high rent. They leave, then someone else comes in, and the whole saga is repeated. We need to stop this. I appreciate that it is not necessarily a matter for the Minister, but it is a matter for my previous profession as a chartered surveyor. From my experience over the years—I have not been in practice for more than 11 years—the commercial property sector has been much slower than, say, the agricultural sector to accept market realities and to adjust rents downwards when they need to go down, and in line with what tenants can afford to pay. Perhaps commercial landlords are clinging to the notion of the upward-only rent review clause, which is now very much a thing of the past. They and their lenders should fully accept—I acknowledge that some of them do—that this is in the past and work in the new reality.
The Lowestoft towns deal is based on the town’s rich history and heritage, and it seeks to take full advantage of the new opportunities emerging in the marine environment, in renewable energy and sustainable fishing, and in showcasing the south beach and the close proximity to both the Suffolk Broads and the Norfolk Broads. The initial public sector funding of £24.9 million will unlock a minimum of £354 million of private sector investment. A wide variety of projects are proposed, including the station quarter, the historic quarter, the cultural quarter and the marine science campus. They may well require some additional pump-priming from sources such the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund. My concern is that, at present, Lowestoft is unfairly disadvantaged in submitting bids to those funds. Despite high levels of deprivation, the town is neither in category 1 for the levelling-up fund nor is it designated a priority place for the community renewal fund.
Lowestoft is remarkably similar in many ways to Great Yarmouth, 10 miles up the coast, with the same challenges and opportunities. Yet Yarmouth is in category 1 and is a priority place. I do not begrudge Great Yarmouth that; it is right that it should have those designations, but so should Lowestoft. Nelson ward in Yarmouth is the 39th most deprived nationally, but Kirkley in Lowestoft is the 25th. In Yarmouth 20% of children live in low-income families but 25.5% do in Lowestoft. In Yarmouth, 22.5% of the population have been diagnosed with a long-term, life-limiting illness or disability; in Lowestoft, that figure is 28%.
The explanation given for that disparity and unfairness is that Lowestoft is now part of a large district council area, the recently formed East Suffolk Council, where there are far better-off places, such as Aldeburgh and Southwold, which conceal this hidden deprivation, though it is not so hidden from my perspective. However, I am not sure that argument holds water. King’s Lynn in west Norfolk—again, somewhere I have no grievance against, primarily because I used to spend summer holidays there with my late grandmother—is a priority place and in category 1. I do not have a problem with that. I do not deny that there are deprivation challenges in King’s Lynn, but is that really the case in places such as Brancaster and Burnham Market, which has been dubbed “Chelsea-on-sea”?
I am not holding out a begging bowl. What I am looking for is fairness and a level playing field. At present, we do not have that for Lowestoft. The Government have been helpful in enabling us to secure the funding for the Gull Wing bridge and the Lowestoft flood defence scheme, two vital infrastructure projects that are now under construction. Moving forward, we must be given the same opportunity as other similar places, in being able to submit bids to the levelling-up fund, the community renewal fund and the forthcoming UK shared prosperity fund, from the same place on the starting grid as towns and places with similar challenges.
I have written to the Minister highlighting these concerns. I have spoken to him and he has listened patiently. I urge him and his colleagues to look again and to right this wrong.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) and congratulate him on introducing the debate, to which the Minister will reply. I always like to give a Northern Ireland perspective to such debates and say what we have been able to do there. I hope to be able to support the Minister. The reason we are able to do these things through our Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland is that the central Government here ensured that all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland had the opportunity to respond in a positive fashion.
I understand that health is not a part of this debate, but that is another area where we could act collectively, with all the regions together. It is better to have a single strategy and purpose for us all to work together. That is just a by the way comment—it is not for this debate.
I have been astounded by the resilience and determination of our high street sector during this dreadful time. I always make it my business to shop local, and I know that other Members do the same. If I can get it locally, that is where I will buy it. If I cannot get it locally, I will look elsewhere, but I make it my business to shop in the wee bakery down the road and the clothes shop on the other side of the square. If I need any hardware stuff, I will go to Ray Grahams in Newtownards or N. G. Bell’s in Ballywalter. I do all my shopping locally because I know how important it is to support the high street. Before covid happened, we were getting to a stage where there were no vacancies whatsoever on our high street. Some have appeared over the last period of time but, thank goodness, most of them have been filled.
The high street, by and large, has been very resilient. From changing regulations to decisions made overnight, they have carried out what this Government have required of them with a stoicism that is the best of British, yet the facts are clear: for many, the threat of another period of lockdown will be the end of their business. Many high street businesses need the trade that they had before covid, and even if we get back to where we were then, I suspect that we will not see that level of trade again until we move out of covid in its entirety. Those businesses need continued support in the interim, and I am thankful that the Government recognise that need and are looking to meet it.
In Northern Ireland, our Minister for the Economy has put in place two schemes, the high street stimulus scheme and the holiday at home voucher scheme. Every person in Northern Ireland aged 18 and over will be eligible to apply for a pre-paid card worth £100 to spend in the local high street, which is designed to stimulate local businesses, including retail and hospitality sector outlets. Following the pandemic, that is a very positive scheme. Eligible individuals aged 18 or over will be asked to apply for that pre-paid card through a dedicated online portal. The card must be used in bricks and mortar businesses in Northern Ireland, and cannot be used online. Some online businesses say that that is a disappointment, but the scheme being specific along those lines means that people have to physically go to the high street, which is what we want to see. We want footfall to return and we want to see people out and about. It is encouraging that those high street stops that were able to open throughout covid-19 received lots of footfall, especially in my home town of Newtownards. The chamber of trade there has done some incredibly good stuff, and should be commended for it. The high street stimulus scheme means that some 1.4 million people in Northern Ireland will spend £140 million on our high streets, rather than online. It is a good scheme; it will have a multiplier effect that will help bring many more customers back through the doors of local shops in the retail, hospitality and other sectors.
The holiday at home voucher scheme will allow Northern Ireland households to claim back 50% for a stay of two nights or more in certified accommodation. This is another scheme that is very specific to the hospitality trade, because we in Northern Ireland probably depend on tourism more than most districts, although many colleagues in the House from Scotland, Wales and England will tell me that tourism is a key factor for them as well. Other vouchers will offer 50% off visits to attractions and tourism experience providers up to a value of £20. The central economic theme of my local council, Ards and North Down Borough Council, is tourism, because—I say this honestly, and very proudly—we live in a beautiful area. I live near Strangford Lough, and I am very fortunate to live there. It is a key tourist attraction. The Mount Stewart estate, which the National Trust is involved in, is a headquarters for us: it is a place of great historical value, and I have extended an invitation to the Minister of State for Northern Ireland to come over for a visit sometime in August. We also have the aquarium at Portaferry, the water sports and potential for tourism at Strangford Lough, and many other historical places to visit, so tourism is a really good theme for our council, and those moneys through the voucher scheme and so on have been able to help with that.
Vouchers will be allocated on a first come, first served basis, and each household can apply for each type of voucher. Households can then claim their voucher money back by uploading their receipt and voucher details online. The scheme will be launched in the autumn, because we figure that in the autumn things might be falling back a wee bit, so it will be good to have a scheme in place to drive demand after the summer season. I believe that both those schemes are a good use of public money and I congratulate the Ministers—it was Diane Dodds and it is now Gordon Lyons—on their research and work in introducing those schemes. We all eagerly await more details on the dates of release.
I referred to the active chamber of trade in Ards, which works proactively and positively in its engagement with all the shops in the high street in Newtownards and elsewhere. I will also make a plug for a former colleague who used to sit with me in the Assembly. Simon Hamilton stepped down and is now involved with Belfast chamber of trade. He is a guy with great potential and has great acumen for his job. I think that he also sees the benefits of all those things.
However, as welcome as this scheme most certainly is, it is not enough. I hate to say that, because it sounds terrible when someone says, “This is not enough”. However, I say it to make the point that there has to be an ongoing policy and strategy, because I believe that more needs to be done to secure high street shops. I noticed that one of the shops over here—was it John Lewis?—said that it would turn into some of its shops into flats and accommodation, so there is a trend for some to take away from the high street. But I think we need to strengthen the high street and facilitate online reach with a town centre base.
We all understand that every penny sown into viable businesses helps to retain employment, and I see great potential for employment. Such businesses bring dividends to the local economy, not only to local suppliers but to Government resources through sustained tax and national insurance contributions, because when we work, we pay our national insurance and tax, so we all benefit. It is like a merry-go-round—we work and then the money returns to Government, and hopefully enough money to sustain what we are trying to do.
That is why I was very excited to hear of the town and city funding. I know that my local council—Ards and North Down Borough Council—was immediately working out how best we could revitalise our town with that funding. However, an issue was that projects had to be almost shovel-ready. Fortunately, we probably had a great many schemes that were shovel-ready, but there was a problem with the planning system; it takes months upon months to navigate it. So I suppose it is a case of having the planning system in place to ensure that these schemes can go ahead.
Again, I know that this is not within the Minister’s remit, but I ask him in his summing up to say whether he has had any discussions with the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland, to exchange ideas and see what we can do to help each other, because I believe that wherever we are in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we should help each other. I also believe that we have ideas that go well in Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. We can do it better together, and I certainly wish to encourage that.
I know that my local council is making plans to prepare for new tranches of funding and I ask Ministers back home to work closely with local councillors to ensure that the funding goes where the need is. Local councils are on the frontline; they have the staff and the local councillors to push the strategy and the policies, so I think councils are the places where the schemes and the tranches of funding should be directed.
I have been made aware of a tremendous project. I am very pleased to encourage all new projects in my constituency of Strangford, and we are in discussions with planners and some of the developers who are keen to provide what I will refer to as “a staycationer’s dream”, in the form of glamping in the most beautiful part of the United Kingdom. It is a new scheme in Grey Abbey, the neighbouring village to mine. I think it has incredible potential, as do the developer and the council.
However, we need infrastructure in place to secure this wonderful environmental proposal, which will bring money into the local economy as well as preserving the beauty of nature in the area. That proposal is attractive because it is in an area of outstanding natural beauty, which we want to preserve. It will also be good if we can tie some tourism into that in a way that is not obtrusive or overly visible but takes advantage of that outstanding natural beauty. Can we look at towns being able to use towns funding to enhance their potential for tourism? I know the Minister will refer to tourism when he sums up, which is a key issue for all of us who are speaking and others who were not able to come to the debate.
I believe that local councils are best placed to advise the Government on how to get every penny to where it needs to go, and ultimately back into the coffers. I look forward with pleasure to the Minister’s response and the contributions of those who speak after me. I hope he will assure us that councils will be able to advise and will be involved in all future town deals.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) on securing this important debate, and I thank him for supporting me, in his other role as Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Parliamentary Private Secretary, with the matter of Walley’s Quarry landfill in my constituency, which I will touch on later because it relates to the town deal and the need to solve that problem before we get the benefits of the investment.
Before I talk more about Newcastle-under-Lyme, I want to start by addressing some of the comments of the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe). Let me quote at some length from one of her colleagues:
“For far too long the ambitions, needs and values of nine million people in towns across Britain have not been heard.
Our economic model treats cities as engines of growth, which at best drag surrounding towns along in their wake, causing life to become harder, less secure and less hopeful for too many people in towns in recent decades.
Our political system is blind to the values and experiences of people who live in our towns, wrongly treating cities as a proxy for the national opinion.
After the EU Referendum starkly exposed the growing gulf between towns and cities, it is clear that this is no longer sustainable.”
Those are brilliant words. They are the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who represents another northern town, when she launched the Centre For Towns back in December 2017. Actually, it was the Conservative party and Government who took that agenda, ran with it and spoke to the people who felt they had not been listened to. Meanwhile, at the election, the Labour party doubled down on their votes in the cities and from people who voted remain and wanted to reverse the referendum result, whereas in most of the towns in the red wall, such as the one I have the honour to represent, people voted leave, wanted to be listened to and wanted their vote and their town to be respected. It is little wonder that the results of the election followed from that.
I believe that only 22 of the 101 towns invited to bid were in districts controlled by Conservative administrations and 39 were controlled by Labour administrations, so on the point that the hon. Member for Leicester East made, this is really about people voting with their feet, because they saw that this Government were proposing to offer something to towns that had been left behind for far too long—towns such as Wigan and Newcastle-under-Lyme. I make absolutely no apology for that, and I am really glad that the Government have finally grasped the nettle on towns that have been left behind. That is not necessarily a consequence of politics. It is as much about economics; it is about people moving to cities and the globalisation of jobs. It is also about the change in retail—many of our high streets depend on retail. I will say a bit more about that.
On 8 June, 30 towns received funding in the most recent wave of town deal funding—the Secretary of State announced a total of £725 million—one of which was Newcastle-under-Lyme. I am very proud of our bid and our board, of which I am a member. I thank Trevor McMillan, who is also the vice-chancellor of Keele University in my constituency, for his leadership of the board, and Councillor Stephen Sweeney, the deputy leader of the council, for his role on it. We put in a tremendous bid, and we managed to get nearly the full £25 million, which will be incredibly valuable in regenerating Newcastle-under-Lyme.
I also want to put in in a word for some of our other bids. There are many schemes, as the Minister knows. Newcastle College, which is one of the best further education colleges in the entire country and was one of the first ever to get “outstanding” across the board from Ofsted, has a bid for an institute of technology. Obviously, that is not within the Ministry’s remit, but there is an enabling bid with it because the site that it wants requires that we move the council’s depot, which is in completely the wrong location, to somewhere else on the site. There is an enabling bid through the levelling-up fund, and there is also a community renewal fund bid in.
I agree completely with what the hon. Member for Strangford said. We need to find better ways of helping local authorities and local community organisations to get bids. A lot of these places have not had investment and do not have the experience of putting in bids. They do not necessarily have a pipeline and things that are shovel-ready. The community renewal fund, in particular, was on a very tight timescale that also coincided with the local elections. We got a good bid together, but in some ways it is the same people who always bid for things, so I want to find ways to reach out to communities— even villages and parish councils—that could bid for some of these things but do not have the expertise or the resources to do that. We need ways to support our authorities and councils, even down to parish council level. That would be really welcome in making sure everybody can bid in to these funds in the future.
I will speak a little bit about Newcastle’s bid, which has three main objectives. First, to open up new growth opportunities through enhanced physical and digital connectivity. We will have new electric vehicle charging infrastructure and improved wi-fi across the town centre, better public transport and better cycling measures. Secondly, we will encourage increased footfall in the town centre by diversifying and enhancing it. We will demolish and redevelop lots of previous sites. Some have been demolished already with the advance funds. There is not much to point to at the moment because things are going down, but very soon things will be coming up again, and I know that will be a real moment of hope for the town.
Finally, the bid aims to channel investment into regenerating communities, particularly some of my most deprived wards such as Knutton and Chesterton. The master plan for Knutton includes improving business accommodation, a new village hall and village green, 240 new homes and improvements to road safety. There will also be investment into Chesterton and Cross Street, enabling high-quality housing for the local community—not only new housing but replenishing and replacing the existing stock.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman mentioned electric vehicle charging. Yesterday, his colleague, the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) proposed a ten-minute rule Bill that I think will be critical for the future if we are looking towards electric vehicles, and I was pleased to sponsor it and pleased that the hon. Lady brought that forward. The hon. Gentleman mentioned development, and I think the hon. Member for Kensington referred in her introduction yesterday to all new developments having those key charging points in place. Does he feel that that should be part of this?
Aaron Bell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We absolutely need to ensure that we think about future technologies and those that are here today when we undertake development. We see that on the estate now; I think Speaker’s Court is having charging infrastructure installed. If we are to build new buildings, it makes sense that they should have those places for charging.
I should also mention that, as well as the £23.6 million from the town deal, we secured £11 million from the future high streets fund, which means the levelling up funding already secured by Newcastle-under-Lyme is more than £34 million, with other bids currently in. That future high streets fund bid is so crucial to the actual recovery from covid, which is the title of the debate. Unfortunately, covid has exacerbated trends that were already there in our town centre. We have lost an awful lot of tenants on our high street. We have a large high street and the Ironmarket pedestrianised area, but there is unfortunately an awful lot of empty shops at the moment.
The solution obviously cannot be more retail, because people are shopping online. We need more hospitality and housing in the town centre, and that is exactly what our future high streets bid will do, with the redevelopment of the long vacant Ryecroft site and the pulling down the old civic offices, which I believe is beginning this week, although it will take quite a while because there is a lot of asbestos and it has to be done carefully. Again, these are real signs of regeneration. Things that have been left derelict and vacant for far too long are finally being addressed by this Government, by our town deal bid and by our future high streets fund bid.
That all shows the commitment of the Government to levelling up places such as Newcastle, which are long overdue some TLC, basically. Once we have got it all done—it will take a few years—we will actually have a better high street. We will build back better. We will have more skills, with a skills centre opening in Lancaster Buildings that will help people get back into jobs or to reskill, and we will have more attractive public spaces. That is important too, because the physical infrastructure of a town centre is so important for people’s experiences.
I should mention a couple of private sector issues blighting Newcastle that I think the Ministry should have an interest in. We have a large student flat building that has been left unfinished for many years, called the Sky Buildings. It is incredibly difficult to work out who can actually handle that process. Various companies have gone through liquidations and takeovers. The investors appear to have lost their money, but that has not been finalised as such. The council is not in a position to take it over through a compulsory purchase order because it is probably more of a liability than an asset now. This sort of thing can blight town centres. We need to find better ways of dealing with unfinished buildings, where the architect or the builders have essentially gone bust and left something unfinished, which can blight an area from a long time and discourages further private sector investment coming in.
Finally, it would not be a speech from me without my mentioning Walleys quarry, the landfill in my constituency. We already have £34 million of investment, and it will be nearly £50 million if we get this institute of technology bid, and these will make Newcastle such a better place, but there is a bleak cloud hanging over the town, and that is the landfill and the odour coming from the landfill. It is principally a DEFRA issue and a Department of Health and Social Care issue. However, it requires a multi-agency approach, and Staffordshire County Council and the Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council are involved as well. Any help that the Minister’s Department can give us in getting this situation resolved as quickly as possible will be vital, because the stink from the landfill is undermining what is excellent news for Newcastle. When I announced the £23.5 million, people were obviously pleased but all the money in the world will not help unless we get this problem resolved. Through the Minister, I plead again to the Secretary of State and will raise it at Prime Minister’s questions.
Newcastle-under-Lyme has so much potential. Finally we are unlocking it with this investment. I thank the Government for what they are doing and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport for calling this important debate.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is good to see you in the chair, Mr Rosindell. I appreciate the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition,. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) on securing the debate. Southport is a town I have enjoyed visiting but did not know it was the model for Parisian boulevards—never let it be said that Westminster Hall debates are not educational. I agree about the need for good connectivity to Manchester so my constituents can enjoy the Southport Eye, and I look forward to seeing it.
This is an important topic and useful opportunity to look closely at what the Government has promised under the town deals, how much has been delivered and to consider whether this the right way to drive recovery from covid-19. I thank the Members who have spoken in this debate. We have heard about the importance of reasonable private rents, need for reform of business rates, shopping local and wider access to funds. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) made important points about areas that have been left behind under austerity.
Labour wants to see towns up and down the country thrive, and we are pleased for any community that has managed to receive funding from the towns fund, but we have to put this into context. There is a reason why so many towns are struggling, in desperate need of investment, regional inequality is rife in this country, and high streets are at breaking point. It goes back far beyond the covid crisis. The Government likes to talk about levelling up, but over the last 10 years they have imposed £15 billion cuts on local authorities. I hardly need to point out that outweighs the one-off £3.6 billion towns fund that will benefit a minority of English towns. The pandemic has heaped even more pressure on local councils, but the Government have broken their promise to fully compensate them for the costs of tackling covid-19, leaving a further gaping funding gap to cover and forcing many to raise council tax to cover costs, making local families pay.
The long-term decline of the UK’s high streets, with footfall down 10% since 2012, has complex reasons behind it and has left around one in 10 high street shops standing empty, even before coronavirus hit. In the past decade, 773 libraries, 750 youth centres, 1,300 children’s centres and 835 public toilets have closed down largely because of austerity. In addition, our social care system is in crisis. After several years of kicking the can down the road, the plan for reform, which the Prime Minister claimed he had already prepared, has not been forthcoming. Families, care staff and local authorities are crying out for that plan. Most recently the Government appear to have confirmed our worst fear: the Chancellor intends to proceed with the £20 cut to universal credit from September, which will push more than half a million people, including 200,000 children, into poverty. How can the Government claim they are about levelling up one day and plunge some of our least well-off citizens into difficulties the next? That is not the way to recover from covid-19.
Even if administered fairly, the towns fund would only act as a sticking plaster over these problems. However, we do not know if it has been administered fairly because, typically of this Government, the allocations process is—I am being generous here—opaque. Let us not forget that a town in the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government own constituency of Newark was selected for funding under the towns fund by the then Communities Minister, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), while the current Secretary of State selected Darwen in the former Minister’s constituency.
The allocation should have been a fair and open process but instead Ministers seem to have stitched up back-room deals that aim to funnel money into relatively wealthy areas and away from those who need it most. Ministers refused to consult directly with elected mayors with the process concerning towns in their regions, despite the Government’s own officials explicitly recommending that they do.
Investigating the allocation process for the towns fund in November 2020, the Public Accounts Committee said:
“The selection process was not impartial…The justification offered by ministers for selecting individual towns are vague and based on sweeping assumptions. In some cases, towns were chosen by ministers despite being identified by officials as the very lowest priority…The Department has also not been open about the process it followed and it did not disclose the reasoning for selecting or excluding towns. This lack of transparency has fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process, and has risked the Civil Service’s reputation for integrity and impartiality.”
If the Government have nothing to hide, why not be transparent about the decision-making process?
For those who have been lucky enough to get some funding, it is now almost exactly two years since the towns fund was announced and the Government are still vague about what they actually hope to achieve using the fund and how they intend to measure success. Since the fund was announced, only 5% of the money committed so far—£90 million out of the promised £3.6 billion—has been paid out. Heads of terms have only been agreed with 53 of the towns, and it is unclear whether one single project has been delivered in full. In fact, there is a concern that, with so many delays, some projects may not be viable by the time the Government have finally stumped up the money.
The Government say they are aiming to deliver town deals by 2025-26. In a time of severe economic downturn following the pandemic and with support such as furlough ending and universal credit being cut, we need to support the covid recovery with a sense of urgency and boost local areas in that context. It only fuels the suspicion that the Government are more interested in stretching out the announcements when it most suits them, rather than urgently stimulating local growth and job creation.
If we want the towns fund to help with the recovery, how do we know if it is working? In a written answer earlier this week, the Minister said:
“The Department will publish a monitoring and evaluation strategy for the Towns Fund. This strategy will set out the evidenced framework and theory of change, which underpin the evaluation methodologies for the Towns Fund, a work plan, timeline and key milestones, and a bibliography.”
Two years after they announced the fund, the Government say they “will publish” their strategy, so they have still not laid out how they are going to monitor and evaluate the fund.
Any funding for our towns is better than no funding at all, and Labour supports those who have been lucky enough to get something, but what about the majority who have not? This is, after all, the same Department that has announced a levelling-up fund that again pits regions and nations against each other for crucial funding and that will hand money to wealthy areas held by Cabinet Ministers ahead of areas in greater need.
The methodology prioritised the Chancellor’s own local authority for regeneration funding ahead of more deprived areas, such as Barnsley, Flintshire, Coventry, Plymouth, Salford and the Wirral. Prioritised constituencies included those of four other members of the Cabinet. This Government cannot repair even a small part of what they have destroyed over the past 10 years using piecemeal pots of funding, let alone build back better from the covid pandemic.
Labour supports funding for every town and every region, and that has to be done transparently, fairly and with a say for local communities. Through the towns fund the Government are making promises to a minority of English towns, with many of those in need losing out. The Government need to set out a detailed account of exactly what the towns fund aims to achieve, what it will fund and, importantly, how it will measure success. Piecemeal pots of funding do not make up for a decade of cuts to local communities.
Now, more than ever, we need to give all our local areas the funding they need to recover from the covid pandemic. The real yardstick of success will be if this Government put opportunities on everyone’s doorsteps. We have seen little evidence so far that the towns fund will do that.
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) on securing the debate and on opening it in the passionate way that he did. He talked fiercely about protecting his community, securing investment and enhancing it for the future. That really shines through to every Member in the House and, I am sure, to his constituents as well.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The towns fund is a cornerstone of the Government’s levelling-up programme. It is delivering investment to towns and cities to help reshape their future, provide opportunities for regeneration and help businesses and communities thrive.
I am delighted for my hon. Friend the Member for Southport that his constituency secured a truly transformational town deal, worth £37.5 million. The town investment plan that was submitted last year constituted the largest investment into Southport from the Government in the town’s history, and I am delighted he was successful. He played a vital role in that process and worked hard in the town hall with local stakeholders, and I thank him for his support.
In 2019, we announced that 101 places had been invited to develop proposals for a town deal as part of the £3.6 billion towns fund. The towns are spread right across the country. Many are birthplaces of industry that have been centres of commerce for centuries. Others are bastions of the maritime economy along our coastline. They are all different, but what they all have in common is that too many have been underinvested in and left behind as investment focused too heavily on big cities in our country.
Town deals, such as the ones in Southport and Newcastle-under-Lyme, are about reversing that trend. They are about providing investment and confidence at such a crucial time for our economic recovery, and about driving long-term regeneration, growth and productivity in communities. We are investing in new uses for often unloved spaces on high streets and in towns, creating new cultural and economic assets that will benefit communities for many years to come. We are connecting people through better infrastructure, both physical and digital, such as the new walking and cycling routes in Torquay and the creation of the new Digi-Tech factory in Norwich.
Where towns are particularly vulnerable, we have already made some investments as a rapid response to the effects of covid-19. Last year, we provided all towns with grants of up to £1 million to make improvements that can have an immediate impact on their recovery and people’s experience of their town. In Burton upon Trent, they have used that funding to make their main shopping street much more accessible to cyclists and pedestrians. In Southport, part of the funding has gone towards refurbishing the market hall to create an exciting new food and drink venue, which I understand is opening very soon; I look forward to visiting when it does.
We have seen many towns take creative approaches, such as repurposing empty shops as vibrant community and business spaces. Each town that was selected to bid for a town deal was eligible for investment of up to £25 million. Of course, that was not guaranteed, but many, such as Southport, secured more in exceptional circumstances. I am delighted to say that we have already committed over £2 billion under the towns fund. We have offered town deals to 86 places across England and will be making announcements on the final 15 towns very soon. The Chancellor announced a further 45 of them in his Budget earlier this year.
Southport is a great example of why the investment is so transformational, as it will be critical in unlocking Southport’s vision for opportunities for investment in the private sector, about which we have heard about this morning, and in allowing the town to develop through further benefit from sustainable growth in the long term. I was pleased to hear about the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport for seeing projects that are funded through the town deal continue to develop.
I look forward to the outcome of the county council’s restoring your railway fund bid, which my hon. Friend talked passionately about. I understand that Southport’s plans for reinstating the Burscough Curves would give residents much better transport options, with an hourly rail service between Preston and Southport. I know how important that is to his constituents, and I know that he has been in discussions with colleagues at the Department for Transport regarding the railway links between Southport and Manchester. They are working closely with the local transport authorities on revisions to the current train timetables, to address all the concerns raised by his constituents. I know that includes particularly strong feedback around access to the southern side of Manchester from Southport and Wigan.
On 7 April, we announced the £23.6 million town deal for Truro, which will help transform Cornwall’s capital into a connected river city and support its vision of becoming a modern economic, cultural and green capital for its residents and the wider community. More recently, in June, we announced a further 33 town deals, including the others in Cornwall. They are hugely exciting projects and have the opportunity to turn around so many towns and communities that have been underinvested in. We want everybody, no matter where they grew up or were born, to have the opportunity to access the right skills and education, and to have the access to police and health services that they deserve. Direct investment will help the transformation, which is needed now more than ever.
The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) talked about the town deals selection process, and there was an interesting debate—even without my help—about that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) raised some very effective rebuttal points. I can reassure the hon. Lady that the selection process was based on an evidence-based methodology that was comprehensive, robust and fair. We used a range of metrics to determine which towns would be selected for the first town deals. All towns selected were in the more deprived half of towns in the UK. Ministers made the selection due to the need for more judgment-based accountability and decision making, and we have ensured that towns traditionally left behind were secured as part of that.
I will reiterate a point that was made earlier. Despite wanting to understand the party political points made about this, we have tried to invest in towns that have been underinvested in for too long. The hon. Lady tried to cut the cake in a way that suggested it was done unfairly, but when we look at the local authorities controlled by the towns we have invested in, more than half are controlled by Labour councils. As the local government Minister, it is my job to push back on the implied assumption that parliamentary constituencies are more important than local authorities in the control of political parties. The delivery of the funds by Labour-held local authorities is really important. Only the Labour parliamentary party seems to be raising concern. The Labour local authorities are working constructively with us to deliver the investment that they are so passionate about for their communities, so I do not accept the points that the hon. Lady made.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), raised a point about making sure we can continue to deliver the town funds despite the challenges that covid presents, which is a really valid point. I can certainly reassure him that we are working closely with all the towns that have been offered town deals to make sure that all of their projects can still be delivered even in this challenging time. Councils and town halls have the opportunity, if they wish and think it appropriate, to re-submit individual projects, but we have not had any applications yet. We will certainly work with them through the delivery concerns that some of them have raised. That is really important as we look to help them through the response to covid. The hon. Gentleman also raised a point about the monitoring and evaluation strategy. I can reassure him that we are looking to publish that as soon as possible, hopefully before the summer recess. I also want to reassure him that we have had that work peer reviewed to make sure it is comprehensive, robust and done in the right way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) raised important points about the categorisation of the levelling-up fund. I was glad to hear the positive news in his constituency about the £24.9 million investment in Lowestoft that is being delivered. That is clearly hugely positive. I was also pleased to hear about the bounce back scheme being run by his council, which sounds extremely positive. I will be very interested to hear more about that. I will reassure him that when we look at delivering funding during this Parliament, we want to make sure that communities benefit from the many different funding streams being delivered. They all have slightly different policy objectives and goals, and therefore different assessment and eligibility criteria, which is why, for example, he secured the town deal, but I can reassure him there is the opportunity to be successful in the levelling-up fund. He clearly has that opportunity as the Member of Parliament to ensure that he helps the council prioritise the bid in Lowestoft, because that is the appropriate way to do so. We will look at that very carefully. That is why we thought it was so crucial MPs should have a role formally to suggest support for individual bids, but I will happily look at his local authority and perhaps provide him with some detail about the methodological process after this debate.
I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that £34 million has already been secured. I thank him for his work on that. It is exciting to hear that funding is coming through now, starting this week. He talked about the importance of making sure councils have the capacity to deliver the work, which is a crucial point. That is why, as part of the levelling-up fund process, we are providing category 1 councils with £125,000 to make sure they have the ability to do that. We are looking closely at what more can be done to support councils with capacity challenges. We absolutely recognise that that is an issue that has been raised. As I say, that capacity funding is extremely important. He made passionate points about his levelling-up fund bids. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on those today, which I am sure he will understand, but I very much look forward to seeing the outcome of the bids.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport talked about the importance of business rates reform. He will understand the Chancellor is undergoing a comprehensive fundamental review of business rates and will report later this year, but I know his comments will have been heard.
I want to pick up on the comment made about local authority funding, and I am afraid I have to disagree on that. For the past two years we have had local government finance settlements with the support of the whole House. Not one MP objected to the finance settlements that were supported. There was a 4.6% rise in core spending power around the country. Conservative councils are raising council tax by less than Labour councils are around the country. We are trying to take steps to make sure that all councils get the support that they need. We took deliberate policy steps that were welcomed by the Labour party this year as part of that settlement, for example, by making sure that we equalise the social care grant by the tune of £390 million, redistributing money away from councils who are raising more money than they need, and making sure that councils which were not able to deliver services were still getting that support.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked passionately about the impact on the high street during covid. He is right, of course; we have seen this comprehensive shock delivered to the high streets and we are trying to support them as best we can. I will pick up that point—I missed the name of the Minister he suggested I speak to, but I will make sure that I take up that invitation as well. We are also delivering funding through the welcome back fund, through business rates support, through our business grants, and through all the support the Chancellor has outlined.
I am sure that all Members would agree that we need to support investment in communities and towns around the country. Southport’s ambitious town deal is just one example of the transformative investment we are making right around the country to ensure that places too often overlooked get the support they need as we emerge from this crisis. We are getting money to where it is needed the most and we are involving communities and councils every step of the way. I will just finish by echoing the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport—we are working to ensure that there will be optimism in places like Southport.
Damien Moore
I thank all Members for their participation in the debate today, which shows how much they want the best for their constituents. The tone of the debate has been passionate but polite, which is always the best way to conduct affairs on such issues. I would like to go through a few points made by hon. Members.
The first is from the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) who talked about the scrutiny and political imbalance in the judgment of where the town deals have been based. I, like anyone, will look at how we make decisions. I am certainly interested in the decision of my local Labour authority—which has three parliamentary constituencies, two Labour and one Conservative—to put levelling-up bids in only for the two Labour ones and to forget about the Conservative one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) is absolutely right—private landlords who own so many of the buildings on our high streets and in our towns have a massive part to play in this. They have to show that they want to see the best for our towns and our communities as well. I have not forgotten about Red Rum, by the way. There is a huge mural to Red Rum overlooking the waterfront area, so every visitor is reminded of Red Rum’s history in our town.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gives us a constant reminder of how important it is to make sure we support the whole of the United Kingdom. I am a bit envious of the fact that if I lived in his constituency I would get a pre-paid voucher to go spending on the high street. I think that I would probably spend a bit more than £100, which is the entire idea behind the scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) was absolutely right when he talked about towns being left behind for too long. We are fed up with the ripple effect that if we throw money into a city, the towns at the edge will get some of it. We need to start investing in our towns. That is exactly what our town did in Southport, and it has done what it says on the tin. It has brought and is bringing in private investment week by week into my town. Not Government money; the Government money has been the stimulus for the £350 million.
Shops are reopening again on our high streets. Big department stores reopening, for example, is a real testament to how much how much enthusiasm is around it. I would say that we have already delivered two projects, the first being the boulevard of light which was delivered months ago, and the second being the Market Hall reopening next week, so if you want a fantastic dining experience, please come to Southport. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) is only a train ride away still, and I would welcome him to come and see how fantastic that is. Finally, I would say that our towns do have a future, but it is our duty, our responsibility to make them stronger.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Town Deals and covid-19 recovery.
Dog and Cat Meat Trade
(3 years, 4 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
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government efforts to end the global dog and cat meat trade.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. Dogs and cats have been our faithful companions for not just centuries but millennia. The beginning of human interaction with dogs and cats predates recorded history, and the earliest confirmed dog has been dated to 14,000 years ago—long before we domesticated animals such as sheep. Our relationship with dogs even predates the concept of agriculture.
Cats, meanwhile, are known in our popular culture as being among the favourite animals of the ancient Egyptians. Although research has yet to find a conclusive answer to exactly when they were domesticated, it is clear that they have been part of our everyday human life for thousands of years.
In the UK, we pride ourselves on being a nation that loves our pets. I know that you love animals, Mr Rosindell, and so does the Minister and a lot of us in this Chamber. It is estimated that there are more than 12 million dogs in the UK, and millions of households, including mine, own one. Millions of our households own a cat, and it is estimated that there are just under 11 million in the UK. These animals provide us with support when we are depressed and, importantly, they never judge us, unlike some people.
To many, particularly those who have been through difficulties brought on by covid-19 in the past year, our pets are a lifeline. Our love of pets is not a recent phenomenon. Nearly 200 years ago, the Member of Parliament William Wilberforce, from my neck of the woods—where I am originally from—Richard Martin and the Reverends Arthur Broome established the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, more commonly known as the RSPCA, which has grown to become one of the largest charities dedicated to protecting animals, and not just here in the UK but globally.
Our dedication to animal welfare can be seen in the legislation that the UK has passed: 199 years ago the Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822 and the UK’s first animal protection law were enacted. In the years since those Acts, there has been the Protection of Animals Act 1911, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and the Hunting Act 2004, further improving animal welfare in the UK. It is clear that this Government are proud to carry on that tradition of leading on animal welfare. They have demonstrated that in recent months by passing the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, and they are set to pass the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, both of which clearly demonstrate that they are willing and actively attempting to take action to further improve animal welfare standards in the UK.
I believe that we are one of the best nations in the world for animal welfare, and that is backed up by recent data and reports that show that we are the third-best globally in this field. I hope that one day we will be No. 1. Sadly, across much of the world, the poor quality of animal welfare regulations and legislation means that millions of animals, including dogs and cats, continue to suffer needlessly. Despite the companionship, loyalty and trust that they show us, every year millions of dogs and cats are killed around the world so that people can consume their meat.
I would like everybody listening to this debate to close their eyes for a moment. Imagine being locked in a cage, barely fed, struggling to stand from hunger. Living conditions are squalid and the sounds are of another animal suffering. Eventually life will end, often through barbaric means such as being beaten or boiled alive. I am sure that we can agree that no living thing deserves to suffer like that. Yet, sadly, that is a reality for millions of dogs and cats each and every year.
I have recently seen footage from the animal welfare charity Four Paws, of a puppy being boiled alive, the ultimate cruelty. That barbaric act was harrowing to watch, and that image will remain with me for ever. According to Four Paws, 10 million dogs and cats are killed in south-east Asia yearly. Humane Society International estimated in 2016 that 10 million to 20 million dogs were killed for their meat in China, 5 million in Vietnam, 2 million in South Korea and 1 million in Indonesia.
The consumption of cat meat has been reported to be on the rise in certain countries too. Research suggests that more than 4 million cats are killed in China, along with a further 1 million cats in Vietnam, purely for their meat. Those numbers are so large as to be barely comprehendible. They represent the reality, scale and prevalence of the trade in the world today.
Next week, I plan to interview Nara Kim, an activist from the Humane Society who works in South Korea to combat the trade on the ground. She was involved in the break-up of the Gupo dog market in Busan. Over the course of her career, she has helped save hundreds, if not thousands, of dogs. I take my hat off to her. I have also recently spoken to the NoToDogMeat Foundation, led by the wonderful Julia de Cadenet, about the actions of the group on the ground in countries where this practice is common. That group has taken an active role in communicating on the ground to those in the industry, and it has been involved in actions, including saving 1,300 dogs that were bound for the Yulin dog meat festival in China.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. It is an issue I have been interested in over the years and on which, along with colleagues, I have pursued legislative change. Does she agree that we have said plenty to China over the years about the dog meat trade? It is now time to take steps to bring about change. Chinese officials repeatedly say that they will politely listen to our concerns but refuse to do anything. Perhaps we must consider bringing into use any and all peaceful means at our disposal, to effect real change and to end the barbaric trade that the hon. Lady describes.
Andrea Jenkyns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I completely agree. This matter is too important. It cannot be a talking shop; we need to see real action. It is a barbaric practice and too many animals suffer.
Nara and Julia are shining examples of the fact that one person can make a noticeable difference, and of the work that has been done by individuals and groups in the third sector to combat the dog and cat meat trade. Although such individuals and groups make a real and notable change on the ground, more can be done, particularly by Government, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just suggested.
I am proud that the UK has already taken a leading role in improving animal welfare standards globally, including by sending troops to protect endangered species and moving towards banning the importation of hunting trophies. Yet it is possible for us to play a more proactive role in combatting the barbaric dog and cat meat trade, which is an unnecessary and morally indefensible industry.
How could the UK go about that? The answer is simple: through our soft power. Make no mistake, in this field the UK is one of the major players in global affairs. We have one of the five seats on the United Nations Security Council. Our TV and radio shows are played across the globe, and our diplomatic service is widely respected in the vast majority of countries. In terms of soft power, the UK punches significantly above its weight, which is an achievement we should all be proud of. With our presence on the global stage, we can make a real and significant difference in this field, whether through programmes to educate people in the countries I have mentioned or by lobbying Governments about the benefits of abandoning and ultimately outlawing this practice.
In order to maximise our effectiveness, it is important to note that the nature of the trade varies from country to country. For example, in South Korea dogs that are ultimately destined for the meat trade are factory farmed, whereas in other nations, such as China, Cambodia and Vietnam, it is far more common for dogs to be taken directly off the streets, often to be sent hundreds of miles away and, ultimately, slaughtered. If the Government were to take a more proactive approach to tackling this issue, such considerations must be taken into account, in order to maximise our impact and effectiveness in working for the best possible result. For instance, in the countries where it is more common for dogs to be taken off the streets, we should seek to increase our education programmes and outline the dangers of eating meat from these sources, and the prevalence of meat from these sources in the wet markets in those countries.
Although we are yet to determine the true origin of covid-19, one of the most widely held beliefs is that the disease originally occurred in animals and jumped to humans through the consumption of meat. It is more likely, given the minimal regulation of the dog and cat meat trade when the meat is sourced from the streets, that a disease will again jump from animal to human through this trade. Taking steps against this trade will therefore have a real and profound impact on our ability to combat the next potential pandemic.
What other steps can the Government take and why should we take them? One of the most important actions that we can take, in my view, is to make it clear to the Governments of the countries I have mentioned that we fundamentally disagree with this practice, giving reasons why we disagree.
In conclusion, I thank Humane Society International, Four Paws and the NoToDogMeat Foundation for their evidence and data, all the great work that they have done in this area, and their support in helping me prepare for this debate. In my view, the dog and cat meat trade is morally wrong in the world today, and there is little defence for it. The Prime Minister and his wife Carrie have both written about this issue recently with regard to the Yulin dog meat festival. The treatment of animals by this trade is barbaric. Although there are many amazing charities and individuals trying to fight this practice, more can be done.
I am proud to support the Government in its domestic animal welfare policies and the measures they have taken to help animals abroad. It is my hope that in the future the Government will consider what more we can do to combat the global dog and cat meat trade.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I know that you have a great interest in animal welfare, so we have a room full of people, albeit small in number, who are passionate about this issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) for securing this debate. Of course, as she has said, we are a nation of animal lovers. I want to put the names of my two cats on record—Raffa and Mr Tipps—without whom my life would not be the same. Animals are so unjudgmental, are they not? They are also a delight, although I am always amazed at how long they can sleep for, while I have to work for hours.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, citizens in this country find the consumption of dog and cat meat absolutely inconceivable. The Government strongly agree with that view and are appalled by the prospect of dogs or cats being consumed. I myself have spoken quite vociferously on this issue as a Back Bencher, which she might remember. Indeed, I went on the Victoria Derbyshire show to talk about exactly this issue of dog and cat meat sales overseas, with a group of other organisations that she referred to in her speech.
I truly believe that we have a world-leading record on animal welfare, which my hon. Friend has referred to. Over the last decade, we have made great strides in ensuring that we offer animals the care, respect and protection that they deserve. Just recently, as she also referred to, we passed the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which came into force on 29 June. It realises the Government’s manifesto commitment to increase the sentences available to our courts for the most serious cases of animal cruelty. I know that lots of parliamentarians pushed for that, and I am very pleased that we brought it through. The Act provides one of the toughest sanctions in Europe.
We also launched the action plan for animal welfare this year, which sets out our future aims and ambitions in this space, both domestically and internationally, cementing our commitment to maintain the UK’s position as a world leader on animal protection. Our continuing work also includes replacing outdated practices with those that provide better welfare outcomes for our animals, and positively affecting other nations through the examples we are setting and using our international influence, which has been much referred to.
At this point, I want to reassure hon. Friends, Members, and anyone else listening that it is already illegal to sell dog and cat meat in the UK. There are strict rules for food businesses on the slaughter and production of meat for human consumption, and dog and cat meat would not be permitted under those requirements. The Government see no evidence that dog or cat meat is being sold or consumed in this country.
Jim Shannon
As the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) and I were saying beforehand, we understand that it is illegal to sell dog meat, but I understand that it is not illegal to consume it in the United Kingdom. In the past, I and the hon. Lady’s colleague —I am sorry, I cannot remember his constituency, so I will not mention his name—were pursuing legislative change with the former Minister. Do the Government have any intention of considering legislative changes to make it illegal to eat dog meat in this country?
Rebecca Pow
I have asked that question myself, but we already have a raft of different pieces of legislation that make it illegal to sell dog and cat meat in the UK, and those strict rules that we have for the food industry mean that one could not slaughter or sell the meat. There is no evidence of people eating dog or cat meat in the UK, and any meat imported into the UK has to be accompanied by health certificates to attest that it has met certain requirements. The UK has strict procedures in place to prevent meat such as dog or cat meat entering our food chain.
As set out in our action plan for animal welfare, our work on animal welfare extends far beyond our borders. That work includes our membership of international organisations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health, which was created in January 1924 to fight animal disease at a global level. It now has 182 member countries, and it now also plays a unique global leadership role in advancing animal welfare. This includes publishing a global animal welfare strategy, producing a terrestrial code for animal welfare standards, and putting food safety and animal welfare at the heart of its mission.
In addition to our own offences applying to cat or dog meat entering the food chain, I am glad to see that the US Government have also prohibited the slaughter of cats and dogs for human consumption, and a similar ban on slaughter was put in place in Taiwan in 1998. The Republic of Korea has its Animal Protection Amendment Act 2007, which prohibits some of the cruel methods used to handle and slaughter dogs. In Thailand the Prevention of Animal Cruelty and Provision of Animal Welfare Act was enacted in 2014. This was Thailand’s first law focused on preventing animal cruelty, and it protects domestic pets, working animals and animals being kept for food. The UK continues to work with the Thai authorities to promote international welfare standards, to see whether others can adopt our methods and those adopted by other nations doing more than, for example, Thailand in this space—as my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood suggested, we are having influence in that soft-power way.
We can see that the work being done in this House is driving change elsewhere, but in addition the Government commend the work undertaken by non-governmental organisations such as Four Paws, which is doing a lot of very good work—I was horrified to hear about the video that my hon. Friend referred to. Humane Society International is also doing very good work, as is the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, building support for animal issues and driving change.
The Government have made a clear manifesto commitment that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. The UK is rightly proud of our high-quality food and animal welfare standards. We will stand firm in trade negotiations to ensure that any future trade deals live up to the values of our farmers and consumers across the UK.
We will be introducing an animals abroad Bill in this Session, which will focus on encouraging high animal welfare and conservation standards internationally. My hon. Friend will be very interested in that Bill. It will drive forward our manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies from endangered animals, to ensure that UK imports and exports of hunting trophies are not threatening the conservation status of species abroad. The Bill will also look to ban the import and export of detached shark fins and ban the advertising and offering for sale of specific low-welfare practices abroad. We will introduce the Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.
As an independent trading nation, we have a great opportunity to work with other global trading partners to promote animal welfare standards internationally. We will build on those opportunities, many of which have now arisen because we have left the EU. We can go out there to really work on this agenda, to make animal welfare standards a key priority, in line with our domestic standards.
My hon. Friend touched on wet markets. There has been a lot of talk about that, and the suggestion of a potential covid link. We have been very clear that a transparent, independent and science-led investigation must be an important part of the international effort to understand how covid-19 started and how it spread. Phase 1 of the WHO-convened covid-19 origins study was always meant to be the beginning of the process, not the end. We are working with partners to support a transparent, evidence-based, expert-led phase 2, including, as recommended by the experts’ report, studies in China. It is vital that phase 2 does not face the same delays as phase 1 and is given full access to the data necessary for the next part of the work—I think my hon. Friend will agree that is very important. It is not about blame; it must be about learning what can be done to better manage any similar outbreak in the future.
Further afield, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will continue its work to raise concerns about the welfare of animals with other Governments and international authorities, as my hon. Friend is encouraging. It does that at every suitable opportunity, including as part of the post-covid recovery. Using that soft power is important, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also raised that point in his intervention. I hope I have given some assurances that that is exactly what this Government are doing.
I am personally very proud of the example we set here in the UK in promoting animal welfare at home, but also of the measures taken to help abroad. We will use all levers on the world stage as we continue to combat the world trade in eating dogs and cats. I hope that what I have said gives assurances. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood for securing the debate and for constantly raising the issue, which so many people agree is very important.
Question put and agreed to.
Climate Change: Wales
(3 years, 4 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
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the hybrid arrangements. 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 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 at westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I would also like to 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 measures to combat climate change in Wales.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
Despite being confronted with a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic, climate change remains the single largest existential threat to people across the world. The UK has a responsibility, as one of the first industrialised countries, to combat climate change and take a progressive, proactive approach to mitigate and reverse its effects.
In Wales, we are extremely fortunate to have access to natural resources that can provide cutting-edge alternatives to curtail our reliance on fossil fuels. How we deal with these issues in the next few years will have a defining impact on future generations and their wellbeing. Changing climate will cause huge problems across the globe and lead to massive population displacement and challenges for food production in many parts of the world. Rising water levels, loss of biodiversity and extreme weather events have already been seen in many places, and we must take urgent action to tackle that.
Wales is a small country, but it can play a big part in the solution. The Welsh Government are taking a progressive and proactive approach to mitigating and reversing the effects of climate change. I am proud that the Welsh Government have gone further than the target set by the Climate Change Committee for the UK and committed to a net zero target by 2050. That is an ambitious target, but one which we have to reach if we want to tackle temperature rises.
When I was granted this debate, I was contacted by the excellent parliamentary Digital Engagement Team and asked if I would like them to use their channels to engage with the public on this issue. The responses that came in were varied and really thoughtful. I would like to thank everyone who got in touch with ideas and comments. There were 168 replies to questions on a wide range of topics, such as reducing consumption, changes to transport use, and housing. There are too many excellent contributions to mention them all, for which I am really sorry, but I would like to pick out a couple and respond to them.
Wendy, along with others, said that we should:
“Retrofit or convert housing stock to passive housing to maintain human health while reducing dependence on energy sources to warm or cool homes”.
The Welsh Government are making £13 million of funding available through the innovative housing programme. The aim of that programme is to make 1,800 homes across Wales more energy-efficient. As well as helping to reduce energy bills for residents, optimised retrofit will help reduce the carbon footprint of each home. There are currently around 1.4 million homes across Wales that need to be made more carbon efficient to help with the 2050 net zero target, so getting retrofit right and making it happen by delivering the skills and training needed will be key to building a strong future economy and helping to tackle the climate emergency.
Several respondents to the consultation highlighted the importance of restoring nature. Both Joshua and Jools suggested that there should be targets for nature restoration and tree and woodland planting. I am happy to say that just this week, Lee Waters, Deputy Minister for Climate Change in the Welsh Government, announced that Wales will plant 86 million trees in the next nine years.
To achieve our net zero target, we need to plant 43,000 hectares of new woodland. Planting those trees will not only help avoid catastrophic climate change, but create jobs and address the nature emergency, increasing wellbeing and mitigating floods and air quality issues. Hon. Members can find out more about that scheme and the support for individuals, organisations and companies that want to get involved in planting on the Welsh Government website.
As part of that, Wales is also putting in place a timber strategy. Using timber in construction has a number of benefits, including the capture of CO2 during growth, acting as a carbon store for the lifetime of the structure, and it can be used again after the building is no longer in use. The Welsh Government want an increase in off-site manufactured homes as a way of reaching net zero, and the timber industry will play a big part in that.
In Gower, we have one of the most efficient storers of carbon, our fabulous salt marshes. They are a haven for wildlife, with more than 20 species of salt marsh plants, which in turn support insects. They are also used by juvenile fish, and many different birds roost in them. Protecting and, in places, expanding salt marshes could store millions of tonnes of carbon and offset emissions.
I pay tribute to the National Farmers Union, which is encouraging farmers across the UK to take positive steps to make their farms net zero by 2040. We celebrate their positive actions leading up to COP26, to be held in Glasgow in November. There are so many farmers and growers, not only in Gower but across Wales, who are positively demonstrating that they are committed to taking net zero measures on their farms, to help the sector reach the 2040 ambition. I saw that at first hand recently, when my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and I visited the farm of NFU Cymru president John Davies. To see that vision in action and discuss the future of Welsh farming was very positive.
Climate change does not respect borders. We all know that the only way to tackle climate change is to work with other countries. That collaboration is sadly lacking in the relationship between Wales and the UK Government. Having promised to electrify the main line to Swansea, the UK Government decided to go only as far as Cardiff. After the big fanfare around the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, the Government decided not to go ahead with the project. That decision meant that, instead of becoming a world leader in tidal technology, we will now have to rely on other pilot projects to pave the way. I believe that Swansea bay will get a tidal lagoon but, instead of being able to export the associated expertise and technology, someone else will do that. We have got to push forward for Swansea and I commit to doing that.
There are many more subjects I could have covered, from halting all new road-building projects, to reducing our reliance on private cars, to buying local produce to reduce food miles. I thank everyone who got in touch with me about the debate; I will pass on all their comments to the Welsh Government. I want to finish with a quote I heard yesterday in Lee Waters’s speech. Mark McKenna, of the wonderful Down to Earth Project in my constituency of Gower, said:
“The solutions are there, we need to invest and we need to plan.”
I am pleased that that is what the Welsh Government are doing.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this important debate.
The UK Government have been a world leader on this issue, with a 10-point plan presenting a vision for the UK that is green and more prosperous, and at the forefront of the industries of the future. The UK Government and the devolved Administrations have to work together to implement measures that will combat climate change.
In my constituency of Bridgend, an increasing number of residents are contacting me about air pollution, which concerns them a lot. They are worried about high levels of pollution outside schools, in particular from idling vehicles. They fear that that can be a cause and aggravating factor of many respiratory diseases. and action is needed. With little thought for wider infrastructure to support communities and a lack of investment in safe routes to schools, the local authority in Bridgend aids that growing epidemic of idling vehicles and worsens the pollution around our schools.
It is reprehensible that our Welsh colleagues in Cardiff Bay have halted plans for the M4 relief road to ease congestion in south Wales. That would also help with the levels of pollution around Newport. We agree with the Welsh Government that decarbonising the transport sector presents a key challenge to overcome to reach net zero, but rather than halting the development of necessary infrastructure, the UK Government’s vision for a net zero Wales includes accelerating the shift to zero-emission vehicles. Electric vehicle infrastructure funding schemes such as the on-street residential charge point scheme, the electric vehicle home charging scheme and the workplace charging scheme are examples of the Government helping to achieve 100% zero-emission cars and vans by 2035.
Wales will also benefit from further funding to aid our movement towards a greener economy, including the £289 million industrial energy transformation fund, the £250 million clean steel fund, the £240 million net zero hydrogen fund and the £1 billion carbon capture and storage infrastructure fund.
Decarbonising the UK steel industry is fundamental to our ambitious green industrial revolution. A movement to lower-carbon iron and steel production is essential to meeting our net zero goals. To do that, we must invest in new technologies and processes. Although the Tata Steel site is in the neighbouring constituency, in Port Talbot, many of my constituents work there, and it is concerning that they would struggle with the movement to the more mature technology of carbon capture, but a movement to hydrogen power, rather than coal power, could be a way forward.
The clean steel fund will support the British steel industry through the challenges of decarbonisation while ensuring that we hit the net zero target in 2050. We must also invest in the development of new technologies that can help ease our movement to net zero emissions and assist in combating climate change. I am proud that my constituency is home to some of the industry leaders that are developing those technologies. One such company is Cenin Renewables. It is at the forefront of visionary thinking: it purchased the first Tesla battery in Europe and is an early adopter of photovoltaic power production. It was recently awarded the Queen’s award for sustainable development, and its pioneering Solcer House, developed in conjunction with Cardiff University, is a blueprint for the carbon-negative and energy-positive home of the future.
A lot of constituents contact us about this issue. There are a number of people with a range of views on how best to proceed. Working together is in everyone’s best interests and in the best interests of our long-term future.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am very pleased to speak in the debate. It is about an issue of great importance to many Newport West residents, and this afternoon I am giving voice to their concerns and calls for action.
It is no longer a surprise to any of us that we face a dangerous and very real climate emergency. We cannot sit back and watch our country burn, flood or, indeed, collapse without taking action—and we need to take action now. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this debate on measures to tackle climate change and for all she does to preserve our planet and protect our environment in Wales and here in this place.
As well as being the Welsh Labour Member of Parliament for Newport West, I am the shadow Minister for the natural environment and air quality in Westminster. While many of my departmental responsibilities are powers devolved to the Welsh Government, measures to tackle climate change in Wales are very much at the top of the agenda. We need to implement bold, ambitious and proactive measures to tackle climate change in all four nations of our United Kingdom.
Like so many of my constituents, I very much welcome the bold commitments of the Welsh Labour Government to tackle climate change. Those commitments are exemplified by the creation of a Minister and a Deputy Minister for Climate Change. That is a reflection of how important the battle to save our planet is to Welsh Labour and to the First Minister.
In recent years, there has been sterling work in Wales that has seen more innovative ways of developing renewable energy and has ensured Wales is one of the top three recycling nations in the world. We have also seen more than 800,000 trees planted and more than 843 water refill stations installed. These are tangible and pragmatic policies that carry the people of Wales with them and that mitigate the worst effects of climate change. However, for all the positive steps taken in Wales—and there are many—there is still so much more to do. With the horrific flooding in Wales last year, we saw that we have far more to do to stem the unbeatable flow of physical effects triggered by climate change.
As the shadow Minister for the natural environment and air quality, I also have the delight of covering waste and recycling. Those are two important areas that see me often looking to Wales for inspiration. It is a case of, “Where Wales goes, so go the rest of the nations.”
I am pleased about the steps being taken in Wales to develop a national forest, which will give us the ability to offset emissions. I support the plans to ban 10 of the most common single-use plastics, such as straws, stirrers and plastic cutlery. I am proud that Wales currently has the third highest recycling rate in the world. Last year, 65% of all household waste across Wales was recycled and back home in Newport West we recycle 66% of waste, which saved over £5 million and prevented 21,000 tonnes of polluting emissions.
The Welsh Labour Government are committed to achieving a carbon neutral public sector by 2030 and to co-ordinating action to help other areas of the economy to make a decisive shift away from fossil fuels, including academia, industry and the third sector. We need rapidly to expand our ability to produce energy from renewables and I pay tribute to the companies developing offshore wind turbines in the Celtic sea and other areas. We also need to develop energy sourced from tidal and wave power. We need to ban plastics that cannot be recycled or composted, and I pay tribute to companies like TIPA who are developing compostable plastic packaging, which is another way of limiting our waste production.
I am gravely concerned that Tory inaction in England could have an impact in Wales. Indeed, the Welsh Labour Government may have difficulty taking the actions the people of Newport West want to see. For example, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 means that the Senedd may be limited to banning just three plastic items to align with the low aspirations of England. Put it this way, level up with Labour in Wales or get left behind with the Tories.
Like so many of my constituents back home in Newport West, I urge this Conservative Government, from the Prime Minister down, to wake up and smell the coffee. We have no time left to waste. If they do not want to act, if they lack ambition and do not want to take the steps necessary to preserve our planet and protect our environment, they should get out of the way and let Labour lead.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), who is a fellow member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, where we have heard from witnesses and discussed in great detail climate change and renewable energy in Wales.
I grew up in rural Wales at Lake Vyrnwy, a few miles south of my constituency, and there I experienced a community that had a healthy balance with nature. Our water came from a small reservoir above the hotel that my father ran in the hills and was filtered through a sand bed. A few years before we moved there, the electricity was still generated by the hydroelectric unit in the Vyrnwy dam, and I hope one day it can be back in action.
This highly formative experience has played a key part in my championing renewable energy schemes in Clwyd South, such as the hydroelectric potential of the River Dee in Llangollen. I warmly welcome the decision by members of Llangollen Town Council in April to set up a task-and-finish group to investigate the feasibility of using the site of decommissioned hydro units in the town.
Further up the River Dee in Corwen is the perfect example of a community energy project, namely the Corwen community hydro power scheme. People came together as a community to build a 55kW, high head hydro scheme in the town. The scheme is 100% owned and run by the community. The success of this first project has led to a second, larger project in Bonwm, near Corwen, where work is expected to start this autumn on building a 100kW hydro scheme, which will be completed ahead of the end of feed-in tariffs in July 2022.
The Corwen projects have benefited significantly from the support of the local landowner, Lord Newborough, whose Rhug estate has put sustainability firmly at the heart of its business mission, particularly through its own renewable heat and power generation. That has led to the recent announcement that Rhug has won a net zero award from the North Wales Mersey Dee Business Council.
There are many other examples of fantastic measures to combat climate change taken by residents and organisations across Clwyd South, including Wrexham and Denbighshire Councils, community councils, local companies, farms and voluntary organisations. I am delighted that the UK Government are pursuing dynamic and effective policies to support these local measures at a national level.
Spanning clean energy, buildings, transport, nature and innovative technologies, the UK Government’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution will mobilise £12 billion of Government investment to unlock three times as much private sector investment by 2030, level up regions across the UK and support up to 250,000 highly skilled green jobs. The plan presents a vision for a UK that is greener and at the forefront of industries for the future. Through it, we will position the UK to take advantage of export opportunities in new global emerging markets in low-carbon technologies and services, providing jobs, supporting levelling up, and reinvigorating our industrial heartlands in Wales and across the rest of the UK.
Specific examples of the plan are many, but I will just mention one. That is the investment of £582 million in plug-in vehicle grants to incentivise take-up of zero or ultra low emission vehicles. Of course, this is as applicable to Wales as it is to the rest of the UK. Also, the cross-Government net zero strategy will be published ahead of COP26. Work is already under way across Whitehall to help inform the ambitious plans across key sectors of the economy. The strategy will set out the Government’s vision and how they will meet its ambitious goals as we transition to net zero emissions by 2050.
In conclusion, I am proud of the measures being taken by the UK Government to combat climate change, and their reflection in many exciting projects under way in Clywd South. I am also pleased that the Welsh Government are being closely engaged in this policy making and strategy, as we work together to create a greener and more prosperous Wales.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is great to be under your chairpersonship today, Mr Dowd, and it is a pleasure to join this debate, which was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi).
I will just remind us of the scale of the problem that we face. Global temperatures are now 1.2° C higher than the 1850 base rate and are rising at 0.1° C a year, so by 2025 the world will breach the Paris limit of 1.5° C. In fact, the temperature is already plus 2° C over Europe and plus 3° C over the Artic, because of differential impacts. That means that for every second of this debate, 8,500 cubic metres or 8,500 tonnes of ice will melt from Greenland.
In particular, we have seen a massive escalation in the Chinese production of carbon. China now produces more carbon than Europe and the US combined—7 tonnes a person, compared with 5.8 tonnes in the UK. However, on a consumption basis, the UK produces 8 tonnes a person. The reason I mention this is that the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 committed to measuring our consumption as well, because we cannot simply subcontract out all our manufacturing and reduce our carbon footprint but then import it all.
That is particularly the case for steel, because Welsh steel has 50% less carbon than Chinese steel. What is needed is a carbon border tax. It is being initiated by the EU, it will be agreed at COP26 and is certainly supported by Wales, so that we have fair trading and do not have a situation where the Chinese are allowed to continue producing more and more carbon. China’s carbon production will not peak until 2030; it already has 1,037 coal-fired power stations and is planning another 300. Closing our coal-fired power station in Wales, at Aberthaw, accounts for 55% of the Welsh reduction in carbon. We need to think very globally about this issue, as well as taking our own initiatives. I am proud that the Welsh Assembly Government are the only Government, not only in Britain but across the world generally, to have sustainable development as part of the country’s constitution and the Assembly’s founding principles.
I welcome the initiative for the national forest. Clearly we need to plant trees—everybody knows that—because they store carbon, but we also need to use trees in our buildings as carbon stores, in place of concrete in particular. If concrete was a country, it would be the 13th biggest producer of emissions.
It is important that the UK Government back that approach and, indeed, stop the burning of wood. We have a ridiculous situation where we are importing millions of tonnes of wood, in particular hard wood, which we are simply burning. That wood could have been made, with minimal effort, into a pulp that could be used to insulate buildings, and it would remain as a carbon store.
I welcome the roads review: we cannot keep on building roads. That is not to say that we will not build any more roads, but we need to halt and think about whether we can plan differently. On that basis, I very much welcome today’s announcement by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which is calling for HS2 to be an England-only scheme. That makes a lot of sense, because obviously HS2 does not run through Wales: it is more beneficial to Scotland than to Wales, and the UK Government tell us that it will displace jobs from Wales. I welcome that proposal, which should unleash a fair share of funding: in the same way that Scotland gets the money, this should unleash billions of pounds for Wales. I very much hope that will mean that we can make good the promises of David Cameron about railway electrification, and that we can get a high-speed frequent link to Bristol so that Bristol-Cardiff-Swansea, which is 3 million people, has the same level of service as Manchester-Leeds, for example. That has about eight services an hour; we have one.
I also welcome the move to reconsider how we improve and increase home working after the pandemic, and conversations at both a UK and, in particular, a Welsh level about local procurement to reduce our carbon footprint and help local jobs. Indeed, the Development Bank of Wales has a criterion that says, “If you want investment, you should ideally be contributing to net zero. You should be contributing towards economic growth, and you should have local involvement and inclusion in jobs creation.” I welcome that approach, as well.
In Wales, of course, we are blessed with wind, waves and solar, and I hope that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower has mentioned—we see the lagoon project delivered, perhaps with extra added value through the new proposals that have been put on the table. That will bring with it a mixed bag of other benefits, as well as energy.
I hope that we will work in partnership with the UK Government and that, when the Welsh Government come forward with new ideas, the money will follow to serve all our interests in helping to contribute towards a more sustainable world. Again, that includes the contribution at COP26. It will be interesting to hear from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who will be winding up this debate for the Government: he is a former climate change denier, but I think he may have suddenly seen the light and agreed that we need to combat climate change. Obviously, this is an issue on which we might have wanted to hear from a Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Minister or a COP26 Minister as well.
Turning to the issue of plastic, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) mentioned that we have a problem with the Internal Market Act, in that we will not be able to recycle as much plastic as we would like. I very much welcome the fact that the Welsh Government’s initiative to tax plastic bags has been taken forward. I welcome taxing plastic, but the UK Government’s planned level of £200 per tonne is far below that of the EU, which is £685 per tonne. We need to increase that to reduce the amount of plastic used, because frankly, there is going to be more plastic in the sea than fish by 2050 on current United Nations projections.
We do need to work together, and I am pleased that the Welsh Government have said that, from a public sector point of view, their planning and ambition is to be carbon neutral by 2030 by using a combination of net zero buildings—that would include wood, as I have mentioned—confronting mobility and transport, more electrification and hydrogen-generated transport, and better land use, including the woodland plan.
Finally, we on the Welsh Affairs Committee have heard that British Airways has been buying up large tracts of land, in Ceredigion in particular, by way of carbon offset. The Government need to do something about that. These schemes were meant to preserve the Amazon rainforest, not to put Welsh hill farmers out of business with no net impact on the climate. Let’s all work together. Well done to the Welsh Government, and let’s have the UK and Welsh Governments working together so that we can focus on COP26 and provide a shop window to the world on best practice for all to emulate.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Dowd. I first of all pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), both for securing the debate and the tone in which you opened it. Your tone made me rip up half my speech, and I appreciate that balance. I also echo your comments on digital services and the engagement around this debate, which I think is terrific.
I could touch on the comments of other Members but, in the good old tradition of Welsh Westminster Hall debates, the Welsh Government are good and the UK Government are bad, unless the Member is a Conservative, in which case the UK Government are good and the Welsh Government are bad. We have approached this debate in the usual fashion. I will try to break that down a little bit. I appreciated a lot of the global context that the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) introduced. I was taken aback today at Prime Minister’s questions when it was noted that 52% of the world’s urban global greenhouse gases come from 25 cities, of which 23 are in China. Clearly, the pressure on COP26 this year is immense.
There is excellent best practice coming out of Wales, and there is excellent best practice coming from Powys County Council and the Welsh Labour Government. There is also a huge amount of work, finance and regulatory change coming out of the UK Government, and it would be churlish for Labour Members speaking after me not to at least acknowledge that, if those before me have not. It is absolutely fascinating to see the pace of change. I will touch briefly on an issue that I have a little bugbear with the Welsh Government about— I have been nice, but I will have a little bash—and that is new road building.
Montgomeryshire is blessed with clean air and low emissions. The one thing that has helped Montgomeryshire more than anything to tackle emissions and improve air quality is the Newtown bypass, with Welsh Government studies and independent studies unquestionably showing that emissions have dropped around Newtown—the biggest town in my constituency—and the quality of air has improved. That is to be hugely welcomed.
In conjunction with the banning of new petrol and diesel cars, that means that road building in the future will be very different. The vehicles on the roads of the future will emit very different pollutants, if any. It is old-fashioned and traditional thinking to see road building in the traditional sense—that the roads will have heavy-polluting vehicles on them. They will not. Clearly, that is demonstrated by the ban on petrol and diesel vehicles. Clearly, that is demonstrated by great companies such as Riversimple in Powys investing in hydrogen cars. Clearly, that is demonstrated by the huge investment in hydrogen production and electric car production in this country. I hope there is time for a pause for thought. I welcome that this is a review and not a blanket ban, but road building projects in the future should not be judged on the environmental effects of the past. That is incredibly dangerous thinking as we see smaller, better, cleaner cars emerging on to our roads.
Equally, I want to be nice: Wales has led. The plastic bag tax is hugely welcome. To give credit where credit is due, the Welsh Government led on that issue, and now the UK Government are following. We must do that more in future: where there is best practice across a border—in Wales, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or across the channel into Europe, or even further—we need to share best practice. We should not be shy in stealing ideas; after all, I read Hansard regularly and we normally steal each other’s speeches, so we might as well share each other’s policies.
In closing, I will draw the private sector into this. Of course, there is a lot of public money and regulatory change, but tomorrow I will visit Garth Holiday Park in Machynlleth, in the middle of Wales, to celebrate its private investment in electric vehicle charging on the site. A huge amount of EV charging facilities are going in now. Wipak in Welshpool—if you pick up a pack of Cathedral City cheese in this country, the packaging comes from Welshpool, in the middle of Wales—is investing hugely. It is a European-based company that manufactures in Wales, and it is investing millions over the next years to improve its production and to help us achieve our net zero ambitions.
If we do this together—the UK Government, with their sheer scale and international leadership, the Welsh Government, with their devolved powers and regulatory functions; and the private sector as well—we can achieve it. I fear that if we continue with a dogmatic, narrow vision of, “We are bad, you are good. This is right, this is wrong,” we will not get anywhere near the achievements that we need, and we will do a great disservice to the constituents that really care about the issue.
Mr Dowd, I have added to the greenhouse gases with my six minutes, so I will sit down, but I very much welcome this debate.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind Members not to use the second person singular unless addressing me. I call Jessica Morden.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Dowd, for allowing me to leave early to go to another Committee; it is much appreciated. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this timely and important debate ahead of COP26 this autumn.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), I was reminded of the proximity of the conference this week when my hon. Friend and I welcomed and spoke at an event for the Young Christian Climate Network, which was stopping in Newport as part of an epic 1,000-mile relay on its way to the conference in Glasgow, not only to raise awareness of climate change, but to raise awareness of the UK Government’s promises to tackle climate change. It really did typify the dedication to climate justice shared by so many young people across our society—a generation that will really help to define the future of the planet left to them, so I thank them.
I also want to point out that in Newport East we have two of Wales’s 12 youth climate ambassadors, Maham Aziz and Poppy Stowell-Evans, who very much reflect that passion for a sustainable future. Members can hear more from Poppy, who will speak virtually at the all-party parliamentary group on youth action against climate change next week, so watch this space. The youth climate ambassadors’ campaigns are around making businesses in Wales more responsible for their carbon emissions, and they focus on the amount of plastic that people use. Those are initiatives that we would all like to get behind.
There are lots of volunteers and organisations across my constituency doing great work to restore local habitats and biodiversity, which goes hand in hand with the fight against climate change. I want to thank the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for its work in the Newport wetlands, the Gwent Wildlife Trust in Magor Marsh, the Rogiet wildlife-friendly village team, the Woodlanders, and the Bee Initiative at Penhow. As the young marchers we met last week said, “This is a critical decade for action to prevent climate change and for action to prevent future harm to our planet.”
The Senedd Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee’s third assessment report was published last month. It highlighted that in our children’s lifetime, Wales will experience wetter winters with drier, hotter summers and sea level rises of up to 2½ feet along our coast. I have looked at the maps and I have a coastal constituency, which is why it is so important, as other hon. Members have said, that the Welsh Labour Government have set a legal and ambitious commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, and are pushing to get that ambition even sooner. Ambition is critical. Inaction is not an option; nor is doing the minimum.
We were the first country in the world—I was here at the time, along with the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies)—to pass a Climate Change Act in 2008, and under the Welsh Labour Government we were the first country in the world to enshrine in law the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, ensuring that any decision that our Government make must serve the needs of our children and grandchildren, including on environmental issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, we have a Minister and Deputy Minister for Climate Change, too.
Others have highlighted our national recycling rate, which is at an all-time high of 65%. I say to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) that the UK Government could learn from that as we are the third best recycling nation in the world and the best in Europe. I thank Wastesavers at Newport Council for its work, and I look forward to the new youth centre in Magor opening shortly. As others have mentioned, we also have the national forest for Wales to improve air quality and remove harmful greenhouse gases from the community.
Others want to speak, so I will finish here. There is clearly much more to do. Lots of hon. Members have mentioned decarbonising steel. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) was right about the dangers of importing steel, which can make things worse. UK steel should be right at the heart of a green recovery, in terms of jobs and new skills, but also in terms of providing steel for solar energy, the tidal lagoons and for electrification. Green jobs for the future in new industries are important to us, too, as are transport, housing and energy efficiency—all of which are in Labour’s green recovery plan.
Wales and Labour have shown a lead on environmental issues, which the UK Government would do well to follow. As the host of COP26, the UK Government must strain every sinew to keep the possibility of limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees, in line with the goals of the Paris agreement. We owe that to the young people who are out there campaigning for that this week.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate, which has been brought forward by the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), and to follow the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). The debate enables me to highlight the opportunities that my constituency of Ynys Môn has to contribute to the Government’s net zero 2050 target and to tackle climate change in Wales.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Wales and my constituency in particular could be fundamental to tackling climate change, not just locally but globally. Anglesey stands on the brink of becoming a centre of excellence for energy production. Morlais and Minesto are honing in on tidal energy and wave production, with innovative operations planned off the coast of the island. This month, the National Nuclear Laboratory has established a new office in M-SParc. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Welsh Government are seeking to establish a thermal hydraulic facility on Anglesey. There are currently only two such facilities worldwide—one in Italy and one in the US. In the March Budget, the Chancellor and this Government committed £4.8 million to develop the Holyhead hydrogen hub. And there is, of course, Wylfa Newydd.
Wylfa Newydd offers the best new nuclear power site in the UK, possibly the world. Anglesey is known already as energy island, but in all honesty it feels like we are treading water. To truly tackle climate change and to achieve our 2050 net zero targets, the UK needs a base-load generating capacity that can only be met consistently and within the timescales offered by new nuclear. Wylfa Newydd has the potential to power 2 million homes. It offers Wales’s biggest single contribution to tackling climate change. Not only that; it is a site that has the support of local people and would offer 8,000 construction jobs, 1,500 long-term, permanent, skilled, well-paid careers and thousands of supply chain roles across north Wales.
Wylfa Newydd would not just tackle climate change but transform the economy of north Wales, give our young people the opportunity to stay in their communities and keep the Welsh language alive for generations to come. I simply cannot overemphasise how important Wylfa Newydd is to Wales.
The UK Prime Minister has declared himself a “fervent supporter” of the project, but to make this happen we need a catalyst, and that catalyst is freeport status. A freeport would turbocharge Anglesey’s energy island credentials and give Wales a step change in its route to achieving net zero. This year, as we host COP26 and commit to building back better and greener, let us take a stand and show the world that Wales and the UK are truly committed to tackling climate change. Let us find a way to make Wylfa Newydd happen. We need the UK and Welsh Governments to work together to bring a freeport to Anglesey. Climate change is real and we cannot afford to delay when we have hard targets to achieve. Every day of delay is a day of irreversible damage to our fragile globe.
I end by echoing the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams). Now is the time to cast aside our differences and work together, for the communities of Anglesey and the future of Wales, our Union and our children’s future in the world.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this debate.
We are in the grip of a climate emergency. My constituency of Cynon Valley has in recent times seen some of the worst effects of climate change. Last year, Storm Dennis had a devastating impact on it, and it was followed by a heatwave and further flash flooding. We worry about the future for our children and grandchildren. The Committee on Climate Change’s recent report on Wales’s progress on tackling climate change was damning and sobering. It found that 26 of the 61 climate change risks have increased in severity over the past five years, and that more action is required on 32 of them. It concluded that current plans are not sufficient and that the Welsh Government need to take urgent action.
Words are not enough. We need urgent action now at the local, national and international levels. I am pleased to say that in Cynon Valley and Wales, we are stepping up. Tackling climate change was one of my key pledges when I was elected, and since then it has underpinned everything I do. I have worked and continued to work alongside local people and groups in my constituency to do everything we can to tackle climate change.
We are taking a grassroots, bottom-up approach to bring about positive change. I am currently holding a series of climate assemblies in my constituency, involving a range of individuals and groups, on green jobs, transport and energy. I thank all the groups that have participated. We have our next one on transport next week. Speakers on those topics have included Member of the Senedd Lee Waters, future generations commissioners, Professor Calvin Jones of Cardiff University, and the Wales TUC, to name a few. The speakers are followed by a discussion in which people can put their ideas for change. We are going to produce a summary report of recommendations, called a Cynon climate action plan, which we will disseminate widely.
Local people have the power to force change from the bottom up, but leadership and sound decision making is needed from those in power. It is a two-way process. We all have a part to play, but there are major decisions and actions for the Government to take.
As I say, the Welsh Government have stepped up. I remain extremely proud that we were the first nation in the world to declare a climate emergency. I very much welcome the renewed energy, determination and urgency shown by the Welsh Government since the Senedd elections in May to address climate change. Mark Drakeford, our First Minister, said:
“The environment will be at the heart of our decision-making…In my new government, the environment doesn’t just have a seat at the Cabinet table, it will be a consideration in all we do.”
The Welsh Government’s recently published programme for government contains a raft of policies to help achieve that, from a clean air Bill to a target that 45% of journeys must use sustainable modes by 2040. As others have said, a new climate Ministry has been created to turn those words into action. The Welsh Government are not afraid of taking action—sometimes difficult and contentious action—in a short period of time, including a freeze on new road-building projects while a review is undertaken, which I very much support. Only yesterday, Lee Waters MS announced a national call to arms to plant more trees, which others have already spoken about.
The same cannot be said of the UK Government, who have paid lip service to climate change but remain hellbent on spending £27 billion on their new road-building programme, despite the findings of the Transport Action Network that it breaches the UK’s legal Paris agreement commitment to tackle the climate crisis and critically undermines the country’s standing ahead of the COP 26 summit. They have given themselves the power through the internal market to undermine some of the Welsh Government’s progressive determinations, as my hon. Friends have already mentioned.
That is why we will continue to take local action and mobilise to bring about change. Our Cynon climate action plan will be submitted to COP 26. I will take the recommendations to Parliament and push for change in all forums, including the Chamber and the all-party parliamentary climate change group, of which I am a member. I will also continue to support the climate and ecological emergency Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I will continue to call on the UK Government to give Wales our fair share of funding to enable us to fulfil our climate ambitions. We could be a world leader in moving towards a carbon-neutral economy. We have the resources in this country to do so much more.
Fundamental changes in society are required if the climate crisis is to be avoided. We cannot stop the acceleration of carbon emissions unless we change the way society works. As Professor Calvin Jones of Cardiff University has said, capitalism is bust. We must end the exploitation of fossil fuels, tackle multinational corporations, and instead put people before profit. Naomi Klein and Professor Tim Jackson both feel that we cannot sustain the current way of organising the world economy, exploiting all natural resources in the name of profit.
In conclusion, as one of my constituents, Morien Morgan, who has taught me so about climate change, has said,
“We can’t let future generations down and say, ‘It’s too late now. We’re on the Titanic so let’s open the drinks cabinet, strike up the band and dance until the end.’”
This is bigger than any party political stance. In Morien’s words, “This is existential”, and as another constituent said to me:
“We don’t own this planet. We only borrow it from our children and I want to leave it in a state that they can enjoy and benefit.”
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am very grateful to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this important debate. It is also a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, my good and hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) Valley. Sadly, like her, my constituency of Pontypridd and Taff Ely has seen at first hand the devastating impact of the catastrophic flooding events and climate change.
In a matter of hours in February 2020, more than 300 homes in my local area were impacted by the worst flooding in a generation. In an instant, millions of pounds’ worth of damage had been caused to businesses, homes and local infrastructure. Indeed, the national lido of Wales, a wonderful space right in the heart of my constituency, was closed for more than a year after being absolutely devastated by flooding. Now, more than a year on, people are still feeling the effects of the floods, including through challenges getting access to home insurance, and there are also those who, sadly, are struggling with the long-term mental health impacts of flash flooding.
Communities such as mine are, sadly, not alone. Up and down this country, both in Wales and beyond, there are cities, towns and villages that have been devastated by the effects of climate change. The sad fact of the matter is that, left unchecked, climate change will lead to more catastrophic climate events such as floods, not just in Wales, but around the world too.
It will come as no surprise that I have genuine fears about the UK Government’s commitment to supporting those at risk. Colleagues may be aware of the real fight that I and other Rhondda Cynon Taff representatives, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Cynon Valley, had to put up to secure funding for Wales following the devastating flooding last year.
Although I am pleased that the UK Government eventually came up with some cash to help communities like mine, it is clear that only the Labour Government in Wales really understand and are truly committed to taking flood prevention seriously. Alongside our fantastic local council in RCT, they have acted quickly to support those hit hardest by the floods, both through emergency financial support and in bringing forward flood resistance measures for at-risk homes.
The Welsh Government have also recently committed to funding additional flood protections for more than 45,000 homes across Wales. Rather than spending funding on bureaucratic reports, they are focused on making real, lifelong changes that will support and protect communities.
Colleagues may be relieved to know that I also want to use my brief time today to show support for a number of other ambitious measures in which the Welsh Labour Government are investing to tackle climate change. In 2019, the Welsh Government introduced mandatory regulations on new housing developments to help reduce flood risk and improve water quality. Sadly, the important topic of sustainable urban drainage systems is not spoken about often enough, but the science really does speak for itself. Despite evidence showing that SUDS address flooding in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner, the UK Government have completely failed to introduce such regulations in England. I therefore look forward to hearing from the Minister what consideration the UK Government, particularly the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, have given to the possibility of introducing mandatory SUDS in England, too.
The Minister will also know that the Welsh Labour Government are leading the way on tree planting, as other Members have said. The creation of a new national forest stretching from the north of Wales all the way to the south is a vital step forward, not just in creating a sustainable timber industry for the future, but in supporting local communities by creating new cultural and recreational opportunities across Wales.
When we discuss climate change, it is absolutely vital to consider the impact that our actions and our Governments’ actions across the devolved nations are having on the lives of future generations. I have regularly been inspired by the fantastic engagement shown by young people in my community on the question of climate change. From plastic in our oceans to littering in our green spaces, climate change and environment policy is brought up time and again on school visits and on my social media channels.
A few weeks ago, I visited Tonyrefail Community School in my constituency to hear from young people about the issues affecting them. We talked about everything from recycling centres to single-use plastics, air pollution and overfishing, and their fears about the impact of climate change on the future. It is clear that young people in my community understand the scale of the challenges that we face, yet the Tory Government are doing everything in their power to make it harder for the Labour Government in Wales to take steps to address climate change.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and this Government’s shameless attempt to undermine devolution and the democratic rights of the Welsh people are having an impact on the Welsh Government’s ability to legislate on issues such as single-use plastic. The Welsh Government reaffirmed in the 2021 elections their commitment to abolishing a number of single-use plastics, but they now face an unnecessary uphill battle to put that into action. On air pollution, yet again the Welsh Labour Government are setting and meeting far more ambitious targets than those at UK level. The UK Government voted down on multiple occasions attempts to include World Health Organisation clean air targets in the Environment Bill, despite clear evidence of the impact of air pollution on the health of the most vulnerable. But thankfully, all of us representing communities in Wales can breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that the Welsh Labour Government have confirmed that they will be legislating to set the highest international standards for air quality in law through the forthcoming clean air Bill for Wales.
Lastly, it would seem remiss of me not to refer to the coronavirus pandemic, which obviously is having an ongoing impact on all our lives. That is particularly true for our manufacturing and aviation sectors, which are both vital employers in my local area. As we see changes in manufacturing and industry across the UK, the Government have an opportunity to make radical interventions to ensure that skilled jobs are available across the whole country. We need proper, coherent policy from the UK Government to create jobs in green manufacturing. Labour’s plan for an electric vehicle revolution is one such plan. We have to ensure that electric cars are affordable for everyone and, crucially for communities such as mine, we need to ensure that charging points are accessible all over the UK and not just in London and the south-east.
I urge the Minister, if he is as committed to the Union as his party claims to be, to particularly work with and learn from the Welsh Government. The impacts of climate change are happening now for us all to see, and the Minister is in a position of real power to create positive change. I sincerely hope that he and his colleagues across the Wales Office and in DEFRA are listening. Diolch, Mr Dowd.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing today’s debate and on her excellent and passionate speech laying out the challenges in front of us. Today’s debate has on the whole been very consensual and positive. I think that nobody in this room or, hopefully, across Parliament would underestimate those challenges. The fact that, as my hon. Friend mentioned, there were 168 replies to the online consultation regarding this debate demonstrates the level of public concern about these important issues.
During the debate, we have heard about, and my hon. Friend highlighted, the actions of the Welsh Labour Government. This week, there was the announcement about 86 million trees being planted over the next few years. It was also highlighted that, unfortunately, the electrification of the railway line to Swansea and the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon are two examples that demonstrate a lack of action from the UK Government.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) talked about decarbonisation, electric vehicles, the new technologies in his constituency and the opportunities to work together across his area. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) rightly said that we cannot sit back; we have to take action, and urgently. She also commended the pragmatic policies of the Welsh Government, including the national forest and the ban on single-use plastic—albeit with the challenges that are in place around that—and the fact that Wales has the third best recycling level in the world. I particularly liked her comment about levelling up with Labour in Wales—or not, as the case may be.
The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) talked about his experience, in formative years, with hydro projects in his area and about measures across the constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who is particularly passionate about these issues, talked very eloquently about the scale of the problems facing us, the global challenges and global temperatures. He also talked about the need to look closely at supporting the Welsh steel industry against cheaper imported Chinese steel, and he particularly welcomed the Welsh Affairs Committee report with regard to HS2 being an England-only project and the need for a positive impact on funding in Wales.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) talked about pollutants and the plea to follow best practice, wherever that may be. He commended the Welsh Government on the plastic bag tax, and referred to the challenges around road building and the cleaner vehicles of the future, which will be a positive step forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) talked about young people in Newport and the work that has been done by the voluntary sector, including the wetlands trust, the Gwent Wildlife Trust and the Newport Wastesavers. Having spent time in a previous life working in the voluntary sector in that area, I know how passionate the voluntary sector is across Newport.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) talked about the opportunities in her constituency and that BEIS and the Welsh Government are looking at a thermal hydraulic facility, which will be the third of its kind in the world, if it comes about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) talked about the challenges of flooding caused by Storm Dennis, the need to step up and the importance of grassroots, the power of local people and a bottom-up approach. I am sure we all look forward to seeing the Cynon climate change plan in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) talked about the flooding challenges of Storm Dennis and the required flood prevention works that are being taken forward by the Welsh Government and local authorities.
A number of hon. Members mentioned that climate change is one of the most important and talked-about topics among children and young people during school visits. That demonstrates a positive view of the future. That young people care about these issues so passionately should give us hope that these issues will be taken forward. One thing that has stuck with me is the strapline from the Rio summit in 1992: “Think global, act local”. That stuck with me, as I was quite a tender age at that point—well, tender-ish. We can all do our bit locally, which is the important message. We can all do our bit in our communities and schools, and add our small contributions together to make an impact across the country and the globe.
We know that our planet and way of life, in this country and around the world, is facing an existential threat from climate change. In the past few weeks, we have seen record high temperatures in the Pacific north-west, and we are increasingly familiar with extreme weather events closer to home, including the floods that affected my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley, for Pontypridd and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), as well as other areas across south Wales and other parts of the country. I think it was the wettest February on record.
All that underlines the fact that this is not a challenge that can or should be left to future generations; it is one that we must face now, together. I, too, am proud that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley highlighted, the Senedd was the first Parliament in the world to vote to declare a climate emergency in 2019. That is why the Welsh Labour Government have brought forward measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Wales, with a target of net zero emissions by 2050. That target is vital to protect our planet’s future. It is an ambitious one that will require concerted effort from all of us: Governments, industries, communities and individuals.
Of course, Governments must take a lead. Through the Warm Homes scheme, the Welsh Government have installed energy-efficiency measures for more than 60,000 households experiencing fuel poverty. They have also invested in major renewable energy infrastructure projects, including the Awel y Môr offshore wind farm and the world-class centre for marine engineering at Pembroke dock. All the while, they have taken action to combat and limit those technologies that threaten our climate and environment in Wales, including opposing fossil fuel extraction and maintaining a ban on fracking. Wales has reached the milestone of generating more than 50% of the energy we consume from renewable sources, up from 19% in 2014.
Of course, there is more that must be done for us to meet the 2050 target and ensure a sustainable future for all communities in Wales. Colleagues will know that, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and others, the Welsh Labour Government have recently established a new ministry for climate change, under the leadership of Welsh Ministers Julie James and Lee Waters. It is fair to say that this bold decision to bring housing, transport, planning and energy policy together under one roof is a clear signal that the Welsh Government will use all the levers it has to tackle the climate emergency. The Senedd and the Welsh Government will expand renewable energy generation by public bodies and community groups in Wales, working towards challenging targets in the public sector and community renewable energy capacity by 2030.
The transition to a fully green economy requires difficult choices. In Wales we are embedding the concept of a just transition through social partnerships, bringing together Government, trade unions and employers to consider the action that must be taken. These are just some of the measures that are being taken in Wales to combat climate change and I hope that there can be close co-operation with the UK Government, something a number of Members have called for this afternoon, as we focus all our attention on hitting that 2050 target.
The UN climate summit COP26, which this country is hosting in Glasgow this year, is a critical moment for our planet and for our country. The eyes of the world will be upon us and I hope that Ministers across Governments will use the opportunity to provide the meaningful leadership that we and our planet need. I hope the Minister can provide us with some of those necessary reassurances today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I join the congratulations for the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). He just said that this is a positive and consensual debate, and all I can say is that it probably is. You should see us in Wales when we are disagreeing with each other, Mr Dowd—but that is another matter.
The UK is the first country in the world to have enshrined legally binding carbon budgets into legislation. We are now into our fifth carbon budget and have recently committed to a sixth, which will set the UK on course to achieve a 78% emissions reduction by 2037, having achieved 40% so far, which is no mean achievement. This target is consistent with the Paris agreement, and the goal is to limit global temperature rises to well below 2 °C and pursue efforts towards 1.5 °C.
The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) made a point about the fact our contribution is not going to count for much unless the rest of the world follows. He is quite right and this is one of the rare occasions when I agree with him. I want to put in context the rest of what I say, because it will be easy enough for hon. Members to say, “Well, you could be doing more.” The point is that if we want the rest of the world to follow us, we had better do what we are doing well and we had better do it without there being an obvious, drastic cut in living standards for everyone in this country as a result of the actions we are taking. If we saw living standards cut and people being thrown out of work because of action we were taking, the rest of the world, particularly countries like China, most certainly would not follow us and therefore we would defeat the whole object of what we are doing.
It is estimated that four times more low carbon power generation will be needed by 2050. We cannot predict what the balance of energy generation technologies will look like, but we can take bold steps now to build the foundations of a low carbon system that is mindful of the need to keep costs as low as possible for consumers and the taxpayer, for the reasons I have just mentioned.
The next contracts for difference auction in December will aim to support up to 6 GW of renewables across Great Britain, which is enough clean low-cost energy to power up to 10 million homes. That mechanism has already played a key role in driving up the terms of renewables while driving costs down. The next auction will include revenue support for floating offshore wind, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and which has significant deployment potential in the Celtic sea, where wind speeds are particularly strong. The Secretary of State for Wales and I have been to Pembroke Dock to look at the infrastructure there. We had a virtual meeting yesterday with one of the companies that is looking to deploy renewable technology there, and very exciting technology it is.
Some of the Swansea Bay city region growth deal projects were mentioned in passing as being funded by the Welsh Government, which of course they are, but hon. Members seemed to overlook the fact that they are also being 50% funded by the UK Government. We are very proud to be supporting those projects, including the Pembroke Dock marine programme, which is developing innovative floating offshore and wind technology.
We are also very well placed for marine energy generation more widely, providing it can offer clear value for money. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ran a call for evidence on marine energy last year, and we are considering policy related to wave and tidal stream energy as a result of the submissions we received. A few weeks ago, I visited the Morlais Menter Môn project in Ynys Môn, which has been championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). Although that project is still being put together, from what I have seen it is well advanced, and I am confident that we may well see that project going ahead. Obviously, that depends on the business case, but it is an exciting and innovative project.
The hon. Member for Gower mentioned the Swansea bay tidal lagoon project, and I chaired the Select Committee inquiry into that with a Labour Member. There is a legal case going on at the moment, so I am not going to say too much about it, but I urge anyone interested in that project to look at the transcript of the meeting in which we heard from the developers. Since then, I have met Swansea Council to discuss the Dragon energy island proposal, and I can tell the hon. Member that I have a great deal of confidence in the competence of the council. That scheme is in its early stages, but neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has any problem at all with the principle of tidal lagoon development.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the Minister for the positive comments he has made about Labour-run Swansea Council and Dragon energy island. In any conversations that he has with other Ministers, the shadow Secretary of State for Wales or the Prime Minister, I urge him to push that agenda forwards for the future of Swansea.
David T. C. Davies
All I can say is that it has a lot of potential. The figures that were put to us by the leader of Swansea Council were very positive, but obviously the council has to make its case to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It is certainly not something that we have any problem with in principle.
We are developing a business model to support the application of carbon capture, usage and storage technology to the power sector. That, along with a range of other measures that we are taking, is of particular relevance to Wales, because of the higher proportion of electricity that Wales has historically generated from fossil fuels. We are taking the next important steps to cultivate next- generation nuclear technologies, committing £385 million for small and advanced modular reactors and £222 million for the UK’s first fusion power plant. Both actions align well with Wales’s advanced nuclear ambitions across fission and fusion technologies. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn is particularly interested in those schemes.
That leads me to make another point: a lot of the actions that we are taking need the support of all those who care about the environment. One of the problems we have had with nuclear power is that those people who have clamoured loudly for electricity to be generated from carbon-free sources have not always been willing to commit themselves to technologies such as nuclear, which delivers just that and does so in a predictable fashion that allows the national grid to function properly. The regulation of the electricity network is a matter for Ofgem, and £2.7 million has been earmarked for investment in the distribution networks across Wales and Merseyside for the period from 2015 to 2023.
Turning to business and industry, I am sure hon. Members will welcome the Government’s commitment of £21.5 million to the south Wales industrial cluster, matching £18.5 million committed by industry. South Wales is the second largest industrial cluster in the UK in terms of greenhouse gas emissions—hence the need for targeted action in the region. That funding will enable the cluster to undertake detailed engineering studies into hydrogen and carbon capture infrastructure and to develop a strategic decarbonisation plan. I was very pleased to be in Swansea last week, discussing the region’s low-carbon growth deal projects. Those tie in with the aims of the cluster and are, of course, being supported financially by the UK Government.
All parts of Wales have the opportunity to benefit from funding through the £289 million industrial energy transformation fund, the £250 million clean steel fund, the £240 million net zero hydrogen fund and the £1 billion carbon capture and storage infrastructure fund.
In addition to our funding commitments, we are working to establish policy frameworks to support our industrial partners to make the transition to net zero. We have confirmed a new and ambitious UK emissions trading scheme to create the world’s first cap and trade market for greenhouse gas emissions and, as announced in the recently published industrial decarbonisation strategy, we are encouraging low-carbon fuel switching and growing the market for low-carbon industrial products. Meanwhile, we are developing business models to financially incentivise the take-up and usage of key decarbonisation technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen.
Turning to transport, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) pointed out, we will end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030. All cars and vans will be 100% zero-emissions from the tailpipe by 2035. Between 2030 and 2035 all new cars and vans will be required to have a significant zero-emissions capability, which would include some plug-in and full hybrids. That will of course entail a lot of changes for consumers, and it is only fair that we bear that in mind.
I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment at the blanket decision to stop building roads across the whole of Wales, because the roads of the future will not throw out the emissions of the roads of the past. He mentioned one in his constituency. The problems of congestion in Chepstow are appalling. We are seeing World Health Organisation guidance being breached. We know what the solution is: a bypass. At the moment, it cannot happen because the Welsh Government have halted all road building. That is a matter of great disappointment to many of us.
The measures that we have taken on transport send an unequivocal signal on the direction of travel that we are pursuing in partnership with industry towards a zero-carbon transport future, but as well as top-down market creation we also need bottom-up technological innovation. In that field, Welsh innovators are ahead of the pack, following in the footsteps of the fuel pioneer from Swansea Sir William Robert Grove, who I looked up on Wikipedia last night. He had a very interesting background.
We are looking to attract at least one gigafactory to Wales. We are supporting the development of electric heavy vehicle trucks in Cwmbran, in the factory that I know as Lucas Girling because I was one of the subcontractors there for many years. It is now known as Meritor, and we backed it with £15.9 million. I am looking forward to going back and visiting, and meeting some of my old friends on goods outward again.
Innovative companies such as Riversimple, which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visited last week alongside the Secretary of State for Wales, are developing hydrogen vehicles. Riversimple took me out for a spin in one recently in Monmouth, and good fun it was too. That is being supported by £1.3 million. In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced £4.8 million for the Holyhead hydrogen hub—another scheme that was championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn. It is a proposal that aims to supply hydrogen fuel to the heavy goods and maritime vehicle markets on Ynys Môn. I am also aware of the exciting opportunity presented by the LanzaTech proposal to develop sustainable aviation fuel in south Wales, which came up during my visit in Swansea last week—[Interruption.] You are looking at me purposefully, Mr Dowd. I wonder whether I am exceeding my time limit.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
No, I just want to clarify that if people have a proxy vote we can carry on. If not, we will have to suspend for 15 minutes for the Division in the House.
David T. C. Davies
I am on a proxy, Mr Dowd, so I am happy to carry on.
Those projects and more show that Wales is leading the way when it comes to low-carbon transport innovation, and they will play a key part in the UK-wide effort to decarbonise the sector, which we will say more about as we publish the transport decarbonisation plan. The plan focuses on the challenges that we need to overcome to reduce transport emissions and ensure that the UK reaches net zero by 2050. It will also review the existing forecasts of future transport emissions from each mode of transport and set out a range of actions to drive further decarbonisation.
The Government are taking a range of actions to put our homes, which comprise a tenth of Welsh emissions, on a pathway towards clean power. A comprehensive overview of the key near-term actions that we will take will be set out in the heat and building strategy, which we expect to publish soon. The strategy will set out a range of policy levers to encourage consumers and businesses to make the transition to clean heat and improve the energy efficiency of buildings. We have already announced our intention to consult on the territorial scope and a key market mechanism to support the delivery of 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028. Hydrogen will be considered as a potential decarbonisation option for heat, and we will be assessing the case for encouraging or requiring new gas boilers to be readily convertible to hydrogen in preparation for any future conversion of the gas network. We will continue to work with the Health and Safety Executive to enable up to 20% of hydrogen blending in the gas network by 2023, subject to the success of testing and trials.
We recognise that different areas will have different heat decarbonisation requirements. Heat networks are one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing carbon emissions from heating, and their efficiency and carbon-saving potential increases as they grow and connect to each other. We have already provided £7.9 million to the heat networks in Cardiff, and I was very pleased to be able to visit them virtually back in April. There is another one in Bridgend, which I hope to see shortly— not virtually, but in reality. Backed by £36 million, the Active Building Centre in Swansea is one of Wales’s most promising innovation projects, working to transform the way in which buildings are designed, constructed and operated by integrating power generation technology into the fabric of the building itself, and of course there is a growth deal in the Swansea area, which is focused on retrofitting buildings. Again, that will be supported by the UK Government.
Central Government clearly have a leading role to play in the net zero transition. We can set regulations, help to incentivise the adoption and development of net zero technologies, and provide further funding for strategic projects. However, in Wales we are seeing our local partners rise to the climate challenge as well, through the city and growth deals and backed by £790 million of UK Government funding. Our colleagues in north Wales are paving the way for tidal energy and new nuclear technologies. Swansea’s low-carbon growth programme is pioneering hydrogen, marine-energy and low-carbon buildings. I have been very pleased to visit those regions and see first hand the innovative projects they are looking to deliver. Cardiff has identified energy and the environment as one of its priority sectors, and I am absolutely certain that, as the mid-Wales growth deal develops, it too will be pursuing net zero projects as part of the development.
Our job is to deliver a green industrial revolution that has reducing emissions as its core objective. It is also about jobs and levelling up: the infrastructure we build and the technologies we develop to reach net zero will spur on a whole new wave of economic development. It is estimated that delivering the net zero infrastructure required by the south Wales industrial cluster alone could create up to 5,000 jobs. Depending on the extent of local supply chain engagement, Rolls-Royce estimates that 40,000 jobs could be created across north Wales and the north-west of England if the production of small modular reactors reaches its peak. The Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult forecasts that the first Celtic sea floating offshore wind projects could deliver 3,000 jobs across south Wales and the south-west of England, an opportunity that would support the Government’s target of reaching 60% of UK content in UK wind projects. Driving up prosperity and driving down emissions is the approach we are taking to confront two Government priorities simultaneously: levelling up across the UK, and fulfilling our obligations to reduce dependency on fossil fuel.
To conclude, the Government are in no doubt about the need to take bold and ambitious action to rise to the challenge of climate change. We have made significant progress, with emissions 40% lower now than they were in the 1990s. We do understand the need to go further, and we will work with local communities, partners, businesses, the Welsh Government, and international partners to do so. This is a collective effort in which we all have a role to play, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions today.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Thank you, and I apologise for my virtual—and then actual—interruptions.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the Minister for his detailed response, and all Members present for participating in today’s important debate. I want to reflect on a few things that have been said, particularly the words of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), who spoke about thinking global and acting local. That is so important, because so many of the community councils have been making really great progress in my constituency.
In Mumbles and Pennard, they have a plastic-free mission. There is a wonderful place called Pennard Stores. If hon. Members ever go down to Three Cliffs, they should go to Pennard Stores—Jamie runs it—because it is carbon neutral and everything there is just magnificent. These are small actions that local businesses and councils are taking, and it even goes down to the individual. There is a young boy called Sonny, who goes every day to do a litter pick, and we have two-minute beach cleans across Swansea bay. These things make a difference to climate change in Wales.
I thank hon. Members for their excellent contributions to the debate. One of the things that the Minister did not mention, though, was the electrification to Swansea, which was one of the Tory Government’s big promises to constituents in Swansea. That is a massive disappointment.
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Lady is quite right to say that I should have mentioned that. I was on the Welsh Affairs Committee—and she may have been as well—when this issue was looked at. The reality is that the costs of electrification from Cardiff to Swansea were absolutely extortionate and had gone up and up. The journey times were not going to decrease in any way, so there was no benefit to the consumer. If we recognise that we have a certain amount of money to spend on such projects, it would have been better—this is what the Government felt—to spend it somewhere where we were actually going to have more of an impact on carbon dioxide emissions.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I, too, was on the Committee, which is why it is really interesting to see the money going into HS2. It would not have been beyond the wit of man to realise back in 2015, when those promises were made, that it was going to be a challenge, and it is a challenge. The Minister makes a valid point, but it is still a lost dream now, and that is what is disappointing about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) said that inaction is not an option, and I think that all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate agree that that is the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered measures to combat climate change in Wales.
Children and Families: Cross-Government Strategy
(3 years, 4 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
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the hybrid arrangements. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered developing a cross-Government strategy for improving outcomes for children and families.
First, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving councillor and unpaid vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also put on the record my thanks to the LGA and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, whose research I will draw on in my speech.
The NSPCC’s report, “Bringing the global to the local”, suggests that the UK continues to have a child protection system that is among the best in the world. However, a good childhood goes beyond effective protection from harm; we need to consider how we support children to thrive. Child protection is a good example of where cross-Government co-ordination is required. I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s recent comments about corporal punishment and hope that the Minister can press colleagues across Government to consider bringing England into line with Wales, Scotland and most of our international allies with a reasonable chastisement rule—something that is well evidenced in the research for another NSPCC report, “Equally Protected?”
However, the key thing for all Government policy is that it works well in practice. For most children, the key things in their life will be education and healthcare, and on the whole these things work extremely well at giving our children a great start. The challenges arise when we start to address more complex issues in areas such as public health, child poverty, enrichment activity, financial education and preparation for the world of work, and almost every Government Department has an impact on children and their welfare.
I particularly commend the Minister for her work on the programme to support children during school holidays. It has been a great illustration of both how complex but also how effective cross-Government co-ordination can be, with Departments, including the Department for Education, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, all having a direct stake in both the process and the outcomes for the children involved. This programme, as strong as it has been, has not high- lighted something that is simply a covid issue; it has demonstrated a challenge that has existed for decades, which covid has brought into even sharper focus.
So why is it timely to consider the cross-Government co-ordination of children’s policy now? First, this is an opportunity to consider how we articulate our ambitions—what we as a country want to achieve for our children. Secondly, today I will make the case for the boring but absolutely essential task of sorting out what one might term the plumbing of the system—the complex web of budgets, policies, markets and providers that we need to support our children as effectively and efficiently as possible. Many across the sector argue that we need to think about what our plan looks like for the future.
I will consider first the question of ambition. The purpose of this debate is to press the case for a clear sense of cross-Government ambition for children. All political experience shows that government—manifestations of the state such as local authorities, schools, health authorities and police forces—is very good at fulfilling the specific tasks it is given by legislation. That is why, for example, councils have prioritised their legal obligations under our child protection system in response to the tough choices driven by financial pressure.
However, the downside to that is that by keeping our policies for children in a state of “just about managing” across some parts of government, we forgo the opportunity to make the strategic decisions that bring about the long-term benefits we want to see, which I have heard the Minister and others articulate their desire for. Many of those things have lifetime cost implications for the state, as well as significant human consequences.
It is right, for example, that the Government have set out a cross-departmental strategy on the environment and climate change. The focus brought by COP26 has enabled us to see all parts of government thinking about how our actions contribute to achieving those climate goals and working with all kinds of stakeholders on the action that they need to take. In the same way, I call for a clear, cross-government strategy for children that sets out what we want to achieve for the health, education and wellbeing of our youngest constituents. On the whole, we have a system that supports children well, but it remains inconsistent in some respects. From early years health and nutrition to entry to university, we still have some distance to travel before we can say that our youngest constituents are able to make the best of the opportunities that our country seeks to offer.
I turn briefly to the specifics. Our children would benefit from a clear set of national outcomes—a list, perhaps—starting from consistent, high-quality antenatal support, as argued for by some, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) in her recent review, through to access to vaccinations, early education, the financial benefits from the Treasury relevant to childhood, accountable education providers with a restless ambition for every child, and a clear national offer on enrichment to engage all young people in the opportunities and responsibilities of our society.
That brings me to the heart of the issue. As the Local Government Association publication “Rewiring Public Services” highlighted, setting out ambitions is all very well, but unless we think through how to fulfil them, we are setting ourselves up to fail. The research base emerging from the network of What Works centres brings together a good deal of evidence in this respect. It highlights how the best value for the taxpayer is often achieved through programmes, such as the troubled families programme, that move away from specific, legislatively mandated actions to locally co-ordinated interventions.
We need to consider that schools are the one place where the state has eyes on almost all children. They have a unique opportunity and responsibility in all aspects of a child’s life. Too often, our system has prioritised institutional performance rather than the outcomes for every child. We need to think, across all life stages, how we maximise the achievement of every participant—something that remains a legally mandated responsibility of local authorities, but which currently relies on a complex web of often conflicting interests across different providers. We need to ensure that regulation supports the delivery of those national priority outcomes. Anecdotal examples of high-performing institutions are clearly not a proxy for the rigorous pursuit of ambition for all.
We need to bolster the power of our local authorities to fulfil their statutory role as champions for children. Public health is a clear example of this. In practice, many councils have been pushed to accept mixed-quality contracts passed on from historic NHS providers. We need to ensure that NHS bodies welcome the scrutiny of accountable local colleagues and welcome the opportunity to reconfigure services so that, for example, child protection and health visiting become a seamless experience from the point of view of a vulnerable child, rather than a process of navigating an internal market.
Finally, we need a clear process across government for driving these ambitions. Ofsted would not accept a local authority’s saying that it cannot fulfil a priority because it is someone else’s department. We must apply the same principle in Whitehall. A Government with a substantial majority, ambition for levelling up, the support of great Ministers with experience in the area—all these things are an opportunity for setting out a new ambition for what it means to grow up in the UK in the coming decades. That cannot simply be about addressing deficits and failings; it needs to be about having that sense of ambition. Too often, deficits and failings are patched up—with great, but often piecemeal initiatives—and long- term challenges still need to be addressed.
Growing pressure on the special educational needs and disability system is pushing education budgets to breaking point in many areas. Department for Education figures suggest that there is more than £1.4 billion in school surpluses, and many schools on the Department’s radar have excessive surpluses. Councils are criticised for spending on child protection rather than early intervention, but the law of the land makes this inevitable. In respect of refugee children, the Home Office owns the national transfer scheme, designed with the Department for Education and local authorities to improve capacity, but market failure in the system sometimes means a lack of placements for willing local authority participants to procure.
In conclusion, we need to apply the excellent research base that has developed—from many organisations, including those funded by the Department—to build on the depth and strength of the experience of our local authorities and our schools. We also need to set out across government that clear vision of our national priorities for our children, so that we have a system that consistently supports all our children to thrive and make the most of the opportunities that our country has to offer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing this important debate about how we work across Government to improve outcomes for children and their families. I am also grateful for the focus on this topic through the Lords Public Services Committee. The Secretary of State for Education is the lead Cabinet Minister for families and has spoken about the critical importance of families in ensuring the best start in life for children and young people. The Government have been clear that providing the right support for children and families is a priority across policy and decision making, particularly for those with vulnerabilities. We all share an ambition to ensure the system works and delivers the best outcomes.
Over the past decade, we have worked consistently to improve outcomes for every child. For example, I am proud that through the work of the Department for Education, alongside schools, the attainment gap has narrowed at every stage of education. However, we know the pandemic has thrown up additional challenges, and families and children rely on policies and programmes owned across Government. For example, that means being able to access a good school and early education place; the welfare support system being there when families need it; providing first-class child and family health provision through our NHS; and, where families need more support, ensuring that the right, targeted services are in place through children’s social care, early help, special education needs and disabilities services, and multi-service providers, such as family hubs.
Departments must keep families front and centre of all they do, and I am proud of the progress the Government have made in joining up services for children and families. I assure my hon. Friend that Ministers and officials have never worked more closely together than over this pandemic period. I have had frequent meetings at the Home Office with the Minister for Safeguarding, at the Department of Health and Social Care with the Minister for Minister for Prevention, Public Health and Primary Care, the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health and the Minister for Care, at the Department for Work and Pensions with the Minister for Welfare Delivery, at the Ministry of Justice with the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and Lord Wolfson, and at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with my the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). All these meetings have brought us together to better our approach to protect the most vulnerable children and young people.
At official level, Departments continue to partner to deliver the cross-Government vulnerable children and young people’s programme, which has reported to the Cabinet Office since April 2020—right at the beginning of the pandemic. This approach has cemented strong cross-Government working and includes both central Government Departments and agencies, such as Ofsted, Public Health England and NHS England. Cross-Government work has been essential to ensuring children and young people continue to have access to the critical services they need and deserve, even over the challenges of the past 16 months. These services have continued to operate, thanks to the dedication of frontline workers, including health visitors, NHS mental health service providers, social workers, school teachers and staff.
To support local services, we have co-ordinated across Government an increase to funding for councils. An additional £4.6 billion of un-ringfenced funding in 2020 to 2021 went to councils for both children and adult social care, with another £1.5 billion-plus this year. My Department is providing an additional £3 billion for education recovery, which comes on top of investment of over £14 billion in schools over the three-year-period, compared with 2019 to 2020. The schools budget will be over £52 billion next year.
When schools were closed to most pupils, we provided £450 million for the national voucher scheme to support pupils eligible for free school meals when they stayed at home. However, many children missed out on opportunities to have fun with their friends, and parents had little respite from caring for their children. That is why we have also expanded our holiday activities and food programme this year and are making up to £220 million available to local authorities across the country to co-ordinate free holiday provision, including healthy food and enriching activities. The Department for Work and Pensions has provided more than £400 million in local authority welfare schemes, including the covid local support grant, which is to support families and individuals to stay warm and well fed. The primary focus of those grants is children and their families.
David Simmonds
I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to enrichment, and I highlight the particular benefits that flow from that approach in policy terms. I am sure that, as constituency MPs, we have all heard from headteachers, school governors and parents in our areas that one of the striking features of the pandemic has been not so much the loss of learning, but the loss of learning skills. There is a real concern among those involved with education about the impact that will have on young people’s ability to return to full engagement. I commend the Minister’s position and promise to do anything I can to strengthen it and drive forward that approach to enrichment, which is absolutely crucial in making up for those lost learning skills.
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Another thing that our young people have missed out on is having fun and gaining the confidence to meet new friends. They gained that in previous years, when we piloted our holiday activities and food programmes. To take him up on his offer, I ask him to please visit and support the holiday activities and food programme in his constituency and encourage others to do so. Perhaps I can encourage you to do so too, Mr Dowd.
This is about children getting confidence back when they have missed out on so much. They have been amazing and have given up so much. In doing so, they have saved the lives of others. We owe it to them to help them rebuild and have the fun that is such an important part of childhood and the teenage years.
Beyond the pandemic, there are many ways that Governments can come together to improve outcomes for children and families. Often, that is through the delivery of local services, which I have described already. That will be overseen by national Government.
We in national Government take an active role to shape and influence delivery, ensure it aligns with national priorities, and support co-ordination across departmental boundaries. For example, MHCLG’s supporting families programme helps families experiencing unemployment, domestic abuse and mental ill health, and supports other priorities, including school attendance and reducing crime. But it is not the only programme to use strong collaboration between services and Departments to help families with that wide range of issues. The reducing parental conflict programme works with all English local authorities to help them integrate help to reduce parental conflict in their local support for families. Violence reduction units are bringing together local partners in the 18 areas most affected by serious violence to deliver an effective and joined-up approach to tackling violent crime and its drivers, especially when it affects children and young people.
We are also tackling youth crime by addressing the risk factors for offending at an early stage. That includes boosting investment in local multi-agency youth offending teams, which provide holistic support to children who have committed offences or are at risk of offending. We must continue to work in those strong partnerships to improve outcomes for our children and families, especially the most vulnerable.
The pandemic has shown us just how important it is to get this right, but there is much more to do to ensure that families, parents and carers benefit from services, and that the services are seamless and built around their needs. That is why we are doing a SEND review and a care review, and are working with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) to support the implementation of the early years healthy development review and all those recommendations. That is why we are improving children and young people’s mental health support with significant reforms and investment.
The public commitments that we set out in the joint Green Paper are only one part of the story. I have been working with ministerial colleagues, the Department of Health and Social Care and across Government more widely to produce the covid-19 mental health and wellbeing recovery action plan and to see that delivered. It includes extensive actions we are taking to support children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing.
We are also leading a cross-Government approach to champion the family hub model, providing more than £14 million of investment and working with DHSC, DWP, MHCLG and the Ministry of Justice. Family hubs bring those services together and aim to secure greater impact from those services for children and families.
David Simmonds
I welcome the Government’s initiative on family hubs. We often still hear that mental health is a Cinderella service, especially for teenagers at the point of transition to adulthood. I have had examples of constituents being told by the children’s side of the service that it is unwilling to take them on at the age of 17 because they will not be seen before they become an adult, and adult services saying that it will not see them until they pass their 18th birthday. Does the Minister agree that that is an example of the kind of area where rigorous accountability is needed, to ensure that the ambitions rightly set out by Government are fulfilled in practice?
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for family hubs. I have a little bit of constituency pride—my family hub, the Essex Child and Family Wellbeing Service, which supports the mental health of teenagers and young people, was recently the regional award winner in the NHS Parliamentary Awards. I am very proud of them.
It is so important that teenagers can also access that type of support. It is exactly those sorts of transitions that we have been looking at most deeply, not only with the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, but also through the mental health action group, which brings together a broad range of expertise on young people’s mental health and is chaired by myself and my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities. We have been looking at how we can support young people through, for example, the transitions from primary to secondary school and from secondary education on into higher education. At key transition points, they need additional help, especially at this time.
As we continue to take steps towards recovering from covid, we must not lose any of the benefits that have come to us by the close working relationships that have been strengthened in the pandemic. I know I speak on behalf of all my ministerial colleagues when I say we are committed to continuing to work together to ensure that we grow those relationships further. Just before the pandemic, we made changes to multi-agency working. We strengthened the duties placed on police, health and the local authority to work collaboratively to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of local children. It is clear that multi-agency arrangements are needed.
The recent Ofsted review into sexual abuse in schools and colleges was a prime example of bringing young people’s departments, local services, charities and parent groups together to identify the issues and deliver those cross-societal solutions to ensure that our children do not grow up thinking that harassment and abuse are just a normal part of their childhood. My Department, the Home Office and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are all working really closely to ensure that we interweave our responses into the Ofsted review, the violence against women and girls strategy and the online safety Bill, to maximise the collective response and make that deep-rooted change. We have to reset the dial and we only do that by working together.
We have recently published revised statutory guidance on keeping children safe in education. We are working with local authority safeguarding partners and the sector on tightening the statutory guidance, to interlock all those wider efforts to best support our children and young people.
The pandemic has strengthened local partnership working between schools and colleges and local authorities with social care and other services to identify and support vulnerable children and ensure their regular school attendance. Those multi-agency safeguarding partners are continuing to work in their committed partnerships to keep children in care safe and to keep them well. Yes, there is a lot more to do, but I am so proud of what we have achieved to make life better for children and families.
I want to take a moment to thank all my colleagues nationally and locally for their efforts, and to reiterate my personal commitment to work across Government, across programmes and across initiatives in order to place the needs of children and families at the heart of everything the Government are striving to achieve, and to ensure that we work with our partners in local government to make sure that they also can help to achieve this.
Question put and agreed to.
Space Debris
(3 years, 4 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
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the hybrid arrangements. 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, and are expected to remain for the entire debate.
I 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 one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address, which is 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.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered space debris.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. If the covid pandemic has taught us anything, it is that we can no longer take the unexpected for granted. The lesson that we must learn is that we need to look elsewhere for other seemingly unfathomable scenarios, recognising that they sadly may come true one day. Already the pandemic has hastened our awareness of other looming catastrophes. Heat domes over Canada and the western United States, combined with rapid glacial Arctic ice melting, have demonstrated the need for urgent action on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but where else might the next catastrophe occur?
One answer, I believe, is staring straight above us in the skies. After being reshuffled out of Government, I found myself promoted to spending much more time with my three-month-old daughter. Obviously, my working patterns were slightly different, and I would often find myself at three o’clock in the morning comforting a baby in our downstairs living room, and staring up at the skies under our conservatory roof. Without sounding too middle-aged, I do not remember ever being able to spot so many shining pinpricks of light, each one a satellite making its swift but steady path across the Earth’s orbit, when I was a child.
It turns out that my early morning thoughts were not just the product of sleep-deprived delirium. We are living in a boom age of satellite production. According to the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, UNOOSA, as of April 2021 there were 7,389 satellites in space—a 20% increase from April 2020. That is welcome news in terms of telecommunications, but who pays—not for the satellites themselves but for the risk that the proliferation of such projectiles poses for the sustainability and, indeed, future viability of the Earth’s orbit?
I believe that this is a threat that we must wake up to before we find ourselves in a catastrophe that has the potential to cause equal, if not worse, economic devastation than the pandemic. By way of a history lesson, the question of who is responsible for what we send up into space has long been debated. The Magna Carta of space law, the outer space treaty, was signed at the 1,499th plenary meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on 19 December 1966. For the most part, it is the primary piece of international legislation that guides how nations operate in space. Within that landmark text, article VI states:
“Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty.”
Therefore, national Governments are now, as then, held responsible for the activities of companies, public or private, that operate in space, yet this has not prevented an accumulation of dangerous space debris, which is littered across our orbit and for which no one seems to have been held accountable.
Currently, there are an estimated 34,000 objects greater than 10 cm in diameter in orbit, 900,000 objects of between 1 cm to 10 cm in diameter in orbit, and a further 128 million objects of between 1 mm to 1 cm in diameter in orbit, and all are capable of seriously damaging or destroying vital satellite equipment. As the British astronaut Tim Peake observed, it takes only an object the size of a paint fleck to crack the windows on the international space station. Those numbers are beside the number of defunct and non-operational satellites—currently 2,900—that have sadly led to collisions, such as the Iridium-33 collision with the derelict Kosmos-2251, which caused a significant dispersal of debris. We also have the case of the Ecuadorean NEE-01 Pegasus satellite, which collided with a discarded Soviet fuel tank in 2013, seriously damaging that nation’s only satellite. Those are just two of an estimated 560 satellite break-ups, explosions, collisions or anomalous events resulting in fragmentation.
The risk of a collision in space is still low, but conjunction warnings and collision avoidance manoeuvres are becoming commonplace for satellite operators and the international space station. Most recently, in March this year, the EU’s Galileo satellite GSAT0219 was forced to perform a collision avoidance manoeuvre in response to the predicted impact of tracked space debris, which turned out to be an old Soviet rocket that had been in orbit since 1989. The international space station has been forced to conduct 27 collision avoidance manoeuvres since August 2020, with manoeuvres becoming ever more common. Apparently, it is not the harshness of space, the distance from their families or even illness that is cited by astronauts on the ISS as their greatest fear; it is getting hit by a piece of untracked debris flying past them at 40,000 km per hour.
The threat of space debris is also apparent in the increased militarisation of space and the testing of anti-satellite weaponry, most recently by the Russians and Chinese. When we talk of military satellites, we automatically think of cold war-era spy satellites, but anti-satellite weaponry has now advanced from the realm of star wars under Reagan to become a very real and dangerous issue. In 2007, China’s intentional destruction of the Fengyum-1C decommissioned weather satellite through the use of a ballistic missile was a success, because the satellite operated at the same height as many American and Japanese satellites. It was destroyed, but it caused a massive dispersal of debris, which is still a problem today. That single explosion has accounted for 10% of all catalogued debris. Should anti-satellite battle strategies continue to be developed, we will fail to prevent Kessler syndrome, whereby an exponential splintering of satellite debris leads to further collisions, from developing.
That concern is not simply confined to missiles, as Russian satellite operators have engaged in anti-satellite proximity operations, positioning satellites in harmful trajectory of critical western satellites. In 2014, a Russian satellite named the Luch was purposefully moved into proximity to both Italian and French military communications satellites. Additionally, in July 2020, the Russian military satellite Kosmos-2543 released a high-speed projectile from its main body, causing the American Space Force to declare that the activity was
“consistent with a test of a new anti-satellite capability.”
Although the projectile failed to collide with another satellite, the capability to shoot down satellites from satellites has now been proved feasible. The test occurred after an April 2020 test of the Russian Nudol system, which is designed to engage satellite targets in low Earth orbit. More recently, from July 2017 to December 2019, the Chinese satellite SJ-17 made a series of manoeuvres with other Chinese satellites that took them past the UK Ministry of Defence’s Skynet 5A satellite.
The issue is important because it puts everything, from our military satellites to our global navigation satellite system services and environmental Earth observation satellites, in danger. Manoeuvring satellites around others is exactly the kind of misguided bravado that could cause a cascade of debris to form and then cut off our use of satellites—and future satellites—for our low and medium Earth orbits. Unfortunately, there is painfully little international agreement that prevents nations from recklessly using their satellites or even equipping their satellites with weapons that are not weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons.
The Russian Government’s choice to fire a projectile from Kosmos 2543 proves that the interpretation of article IV of the outer space treaty, which prevents nations from putting WMD or nuclear weapons into space, applies only to WMDs or nuclear weapons. We have a gap in the treaty.
As so often in international affairs, we have a problem that is growing in a less than adequate direction from current international treaties, and a global response that can only be described as lacking. Yet that has begun to change, as the recent G7 leaders’ summit in Cornwall proved with a joint statement on space debris, giving some much-needed leadership in an area that is vital for the continuation of human development, both in space and on Earth. In the joint statement, G7 leaders pledged to promote a
“safe and sustainable use of space to support humanity’s ambitions”.
The statement went on to
“recognise the growing hazard of space debris”,
highlighting the fragile nature of our planet’s upper atmosphere and promoting the desire for nations to co-operate in the safeguarding of space. Additionally, the G7 agreed on the importance of continued international collaboration and the promotion of both public and commercial efforts to clean up our low and medium Earth orbits.
Increased awareness, investment and specific regulation will be vital for a path forward to prevent the increase in space debris, removing what is currently a problem, and preventing irresponsible satellite activities in future. The joint declaration from the G7 was a strong step forward towards building strong space regulation and fostering the continued international partnerships between nations and private enterprises. However, more must be done to hold all space-capable countries and companies accountable for the shared good of our Earth orbit.
This problem will continue to be more apparent as the number of satellites, space missions and even commercial flights to the edge of space increase. I am sure we were all at the edge of our seats on 11 July last week when Sir Richard Branson came home after successfully visiting the edge of space during Virgin Galactic’s first commercial flight. I congratulate Virgin Galactic on that achievement. Although that milestone should be celebrated, Virgin Galactic’s mission success highlights the increased interest and ultimately the increased accessibility of space.
Additionally, missions to provide satellite broadband to the world, including the 3 billion people who do not have broadband access at the moment, by companies such as SpaceX, OneWeb and the many state-owned Chinese aeronautical companies, will require the deployment of thousands, if not tens of thousands, more satellites. Those mega constellation projects have already begun, as there was a 28% increase in satellites from 2020-21.
SpaceX’s Starlink constellation has already launched 1,730 satellites as of May 2021, with a total of 42,000 planned over the next few decades. Truly, we are living in a second space age of which we can all be proud, and thankful for the development of this remarkable technology, but the dramatic and continued increase in the number of satellites being launched means that we need to have an awareness of the increase in the amount of space debris and the real danger that it will pose to our modern world.
Many of the satellites that we rely on provide services for GNSS, also known as GPS. That is classified as an invisible utility, and for good reason, because without GNSS nearly every branch of critical national infrastructure would be in obvious jeopardy. Communications, emergency and hospital services, finance and transport all rely on GNSS to operate smoothly, and all rely on satellite services.
To put the importance of GNSS into perspective, a 2017 report by London Economics calculated that the economic impact on the UK of a five-day disruption to the network would put thousands of jobs at risk and cost around £5.2 billion—a major disruption to every aspect of modern life not even being counted in that figure. A disruption of that magnitude is not out of the question, and we need to face the reality. With more satellites comes more debris, and more opportunities for a serious accident to occur, as space travel becomes commercialised and access to space becomes ever more possible.
Should we continue largely to ignore the issue of space debris, we risk developing a situation where the upper atmosphere becomes completely unusable—that Kessler syndrome that I mentioned of an hypothesised scenario, where due to the amount of junk in space, pieces begin to collide with each other on a far more regular basis, causing a cascade of debris, effectively cutting off use of our lower orbit.
This growing number of satellites are becoming dependent on support technologies to avoid not only the increasing debris we are inevitably creating but other satellites. According to Holger Krag of the European Space Agency, today 15% to 20% of all satellite-avoidance actions involve manoeuvres away from other active satellites. That means that there is an increasingly established process of satellite operators contacting each other and co-ordinating actions to avoid collisions.
All that takes time and resource, contingent on fuel levels, satellite response times and successful co-ordination from operators. Because there is no universal system, such as an air traffic control for satellites, we are wasting fuel, decreasing response times and lowering the lifespan of satellites. International standards and agreed regulations will be incredibly important, moving forwards into this new space age. Thankfully, the UK, even though it is not a tier one space power, much as I would like it to be higher up that agenda, has been leading the way on space debris, by using our brilliant diplomats to push for an updated international legislative framework, aimed at modernising space law, and creating consistent legal frameworks that will help create sustainable space development.
The UK was among the first international partners to join the US-led Operation Olympic Defender, an effort to build closer co-operation with allied nations in securing and protecting space. The UK has also worked with the UNOOSA to encourage the development of space debris removal technologies. In addition, space domain awareness is a critical enabling capability, if the UK is successfully to manage the threat posed by space debris, including its removal.
The UK military recognise the need to understand this rapidly evolving and dynamic landscape in order to protect, defend and regulate the UK’s space interests, and to mitigate the threats posed to the UK’s assets and critical national infrastructure, and to play its part in assuring safe and responsible behaviour in space.
In January this year, a new space domain awareness software capability, known as Aurora, went live for operations and was successfully deployed into the Defence Digital’s MOD Cloud ICE. The software was designed, developed and deployed by CGI in partnership with the Royal Air Force and the UK Space Agency, as part of work to enhance the current UK Space Operations Centre.
Space is inherently dual use in nature, with congestion and debris an issue for both military and commercial satellite operators alike. The UK has a long-standing heritage in space domain awareness, and arguably has one of the best space domain awareness sensors in Europe in the form of RAF Fylingdales. Current and planned defence radars can contribute to space domain awareness through the inherent sensitivity, range resolution and discrimination capabilities. They benefit defence and wider Government objectives, and should be progressed at pace. RAF Fylingdales is also renowned for its whole-force approach to space operations, working with industry partners to develop this capability. British company Serco has been working with the RAF and now Space Command to deliver the RAF Fylingdales orbital analysis servers and sensor support for over 55 years. Serco is now exporting this heritage and skillset to support US Space Command with deep space surveillance.
Commercial space operators also have a large part to play, and a vested interest, in creating a sustainable space environment. Last week, in a speech at Space-Comm expo in Farnborough, which I attended, Rajeev Suri, chief executive officer of Inmarsat, set out a vision for
“an unrelenting commitment to sustainability in space”.
Mr Suri also highlighted the need to pay close attention to the potential risk of collision and the growing challenge of atmospheric pollution posed by deorbiting satellites, particularly during the recent rapid expansion phase of mega constellations, which I have spoken about.
The UK already has fast-growing capability in debris removal technology. The UK team at Astroscale are leading the mission operations for the world’s first commercial debris removal mission, ELSA-d, which is currently in low Earth orbit, preparing for the capture of a dummy defunct satellite, using a magnetic-capture docking-plate mechanism, in the next few months. This mission will be a milestone moment for the deployment of debris removal services, including Astroscale’s next phase partnership with OneWeb, via the European Space Agency Sunrise programme, to develop the technology to remove multiple pieces of space junk in a single mission and to demonstrate the commercial viability of a future service, ELSA-M.
At the same time, the UK is witnessing a surge in start-up space companies that are placing sustainability and environmental concerns at the heart of their missions. For example, Black Arrow, which plans to become the first net-zero launch company, is investigating the innovative use of new, environmentally friendly propulsion fuels and recoverable and reusable rocket launchers, to demonstrate to the space industry that we can chart a new net-zero course for space.
We need not invest in clean-up missions and sustainable space technologies simply out of altruism. It is important to recognise the potential growth that the space sector can provide for UK plc. Figures released in May by the UK Space Agency showed that sector income rose by 5.7%—from £14.8 billion to £16.4 billion—between 2016-17 and 2018-19. I would wager that it has risen higher still over the past two years. Over the same timeframe, employment in the sector increased by 3,200, to 45,100 people, and supportive R&D technology investments relating to space activities increased by 18%, to £702 million.
In short, the space industry in the UK is in a good position to not only do the responsible thing and help solve a growing problem, but to be successful while doing so. The UK needs to build itself a space-centric education pipeline to properly capitalise on the growing environment of the successful UK space industry. Investing in R&D technologies such as robotics, autonomous systems, quantum computing and satellite technologies will help the UK capture a space industry market share that is bigger than it already is. Currently, the in-orbit servicing sector is estimated to be worth $4.4 billion, and, should we act fast and invest in the best bets when it comes to space debris removal, we should be capable of capturing at least $1 billion of this market by 2030.
Central funding will be a key solution to this technological problem, and the UK Space Agency, via the UK Government, has been leading the way in helping develop new and innovative technologies for cleaning up space. In 2020, the UK Space Agency allocated £1 million to companies to assist tracking space debris. In addition to awarding £2.5 million to Astroscale UK in May 2021, only a few weeks ago the Government invited space firms to apply for a share of up to £800,000 in funding for the purpose of cleaning up space. For this initiative, the UK Space Agency is seeking to fund additional debris removal feasibility studies and develop debris removal mission concepts and system designs. Due in part to this renewed funding, the number of jobs in the UK space sector has increased, and overall income in that industry continues to rise. Continued funding, paired with internationally recognised regulation, will be the key to ensuring that we can tackle space debris as a nation.
For the UK to take the much-needed serious step in global leadership and position ourselves as a leader in space sustainability and debris removal, we must continue to encourage the development of environmentally sustainable space assets. The ELSA programme from Astroscale is a strong start, but we must continue to invest in our UK space assets and our cutting-edge R&D programmes in this field. By encouraging the commercialisation of space debris removal, we will also be fostering a financially lucrative industry that can be driven by the UK and create future UK jobs. This can be accomplished by increasing the scope and financing of the recent UK Space Agency phase A study, which is aimed at supporting space debris removal proposals. I urge the Minister to look at that study.
We can also take a leadership role globally by ensuring that regulation keeps up with industry development, and specifically by making it mandatory for companies to develop satellite sustainability contingency plans and encouraging partnerships with companies such as Astroscale for satellite end-of-life services with the use of docking plates. Regulation can also aim to ensure that low Earth orbit satellites have the capability to undertake collision avoidance manoeuvres and encourage the development of a space traffic control system. By establishing a “pay now or pay more later” system to encourage companies to prepare satellites for removal or face serious costs later if they are forced into collision avoidance manoeuvres, we will encourage companies to establish sustainability plans. Consistency and transparency in these matters will encourage space industry investment.
We must also remember that as global Britain, we need to leverage our international alliances with global partners such as the United States, Australia, Japan and India to establish agreed regulation and resist aggressive actions from other countries, such as China and Russia. With these partners and more, we can help establish a “net zero space” sustainable development goal to face this growing challenge in our lower and middle Earth orbits over the coming decades.
Two years ago, when I was an Energy Minister at the same time as being space Minister, I signed net zero into law, committing the UK to becoming the first major nation and the first G7 country to state that we would have net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Two years on, 75% of the Earth’s land mass has now committed to a net zero target ahead of COP26 this year, which just goes to demonstrate the leadership role that the UK can play globally. We can demonstrate to the rest of the world what can be achieved, so let us now take this opportunity to show leadership on space debris internationally, and to push for a net zero space environment and lead the world in the sustainable use of space.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for having secured this important debate, and I pay tribute to him for his work as the vice-chair of the parliamentary space committee and thank him for his analysis of the issues around space debris, as well as the space history lesson. Space is such a fascinating topic, and every time we discuss it in this House, it never fails to inspire awe and excitement. Britain has a proud history of space exploration. In fact, to add to the history that the right hon. Gentleman set out, the British Interplanetary Society is the oldest space advocacy organisation on Earth; there may be other, older ones elsewhere of which we are not aware.
Here on Earth, as we aim to enter, as the right hon. Gentleman set out, a more socially conscious era of green growth, protecting and keeping our Earth and seas clean is commonly discussed, but rarely do we look up and think about how clean the sky beyond the Earth’s atmosphere is. That is one reason why this debate is so important—because we are addressing an under-discussed topic on which the Government have failed to provide direction, and exploring the opportunities, as set out so eloquently by the right hon. Gentleman, that may arise from the need to address space debris.
I will not repeat all the statistics that the right hon. Gentleman set out, but it is striking that there are more than 900,000 objects currently orbiting the Earth, with 23,000 of those being pieces of man-made debris larger than 1 cm. Since 1957, there have been 10,680 satellites launched into Earth’s orbit, with around 6,250 still in space, which is impressive, but only 3,700 are still functioning. If any two were to collide, the result could be catastrophic, creating thousands of new pieces of dangerous space junk, as the right hon. Gentleman set out. These objects could stay in orbit for hundreds of years, putting at risk working satellites that people depend on for everyday services.
The threat is not only far above our heads. In May this year, an 18-tonne chunk of metal that was once the core stage of a Chinese Long March 5B rocket crashed down to Earth, narrowly missing the island of the Maldives. Last year, research for the International Astronautical Congress revealed that the 50 most dangerous objects currently in orbit were all large rocket boosters, mainly from Russia, left drifting around our planet.
As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the removal of hazardous materials on Earth or in space presents a significant commercial opportunity. A joint venture between the UK and Japan, the Tokyo-based firm Astroscale, which has control centres in Oxfordshire, launched two rockets to begin the process of cleaning up some of the 9,000 tonnes of space debris. I am pleased that it is leading the way. What discussions has the Minister had with Astroscale, and what steps is she taking to support the British-based clean-up firms of the future? I am pleased that at the G7, as the right hon. Member for Kingswood alluded to, the UK joined our allies in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the EU and the US to take action to tackle space debris. Those nations agreed that we need global standards on space debris and committed to the long-term sustainable use of space. However, what will that look like in real terms? Can the Minister tell us when we will see a long-term, sustainable plan for space debris? For that matter, can she tell us when we will have a space strategy?
The space industry generally is worth more than £14.8 billion per year and has grown at a rate five times greater than the wider economy since 1999. The success of this sector helps to drive prosperity across the UK. UK space businesses spend around £750 million annually, with around 1,500 UK suppliers based across every region of the UK. Many of the jobs created in space manufacturing are also highly productive, with the average salary of an Airbus UK space employee, for example, standing at £51,000—nearly 50% higher than the UK national average. The UK’s proud history in space exploration, research and development makes us an excellent launchpad for future growth and for leadership in the space debris domain.
The UK and its place in the world are changing. We have left the European Union, which meant turning our back on the Galileo project that we did so much to bring about, at an estimated cost of £1.2 billion to the taxpayer. The Government then U-turned on plans to develop a rival, sovereign GNSS system, at a cost of a further £60 million. Can the Minister tells us the status of our sovereign satellite navigation capability? The right hon. Member for Kingswood set out the possible impact on our economy of space debris reducing or stopping GNSS services.
The Secretary of State has decided to take control over strategy and policy away from the UK Space Agency, handing the almost £600 million budget directly to the Government. Yet, as I have mentioned, we remain without a long-term, specific space sector deal and have not received an update on the space growth partnership since its launch in March 2018. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made by the Space Growth Partnership in achieving its stated aim of the UK making up 10% of the global space market by 2030? What role does she see space debris clean-up playing in that partnership and in that growth? What analysis will be conducted of the market risks and national security risks that the right hon. Member outlined?
The Government talk excitedly about global Britain, but Labour wants to see an interplanetary Britain, powered by a booming space sector. Space is not just for the stars; it impacts every household in the country. From climate change and rural broadband to transport and agriculture, from our smartphones to our credit cards, the UK space sector helps us all prosper. The satellites at risk from space debris are central to providing those services.
The Government have failed to come forward with a clear, long-term space strategy to fully unlock the potential of the sector. Without such a strategy, the hard work of our space sector—developing spaceports, rocket launchpads, space domain awareness projects, military grade software and satellite projects that are critical for our vital infrastructure—cannot be fully realised. If we are to ensure the success of those programmes, we must understand whether we have the industrial capability to do so. Part of unlocking the potential of our space industry is knowing how we utilise our industrial base to achieve our goals, and in turn where we need further investment and finance to encourage outward investment by UK businesses.
There is no strategy for external investment or for skills—in particular, diverse skills. The space sector needs the skills of everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, region or age, and it is not as diverse as I am sure the Minister would like. There is no strategy for that. There is no strategy for industry and manufacturing, for sovereign navigation satellite capabilities or for whether and how we will compete with SpaceX and others. Instead, we have the manifesto of a Government who have their heads in the clouds—they certainly do not have a strategy for space. Down on Earth, the sector is still waiting to hear about the future of the new regulations introduced under the Space Industry Act 2018, particularly those dealing with administrative burdens and liabilities.
Nothing better illustrates the lack of strategy and transparency than the purchase of OneWeb despite the advice of experts and the concerns of the UK Space Agency. First we were told that it would be a part of our sovereign GNSS programme, but then it was not. We still do not know what the Government have planned for OneWeb. We heard that it may be part of our approach to space debris. We do not know whether that huge investment will ever support jobs in the UK space sector if the satellites continue to be manufactured in Florida. I would appreciate it if the Minister gave some clarity on the space strategy generally and specifically on OneWeb.
The space sector provides the UK with many opportunities to grow our economy, push technological boundaries and boost our soft power by developing strategic interdependence with our allies, which I very much support. I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Kingswood secured this debate, but as the Minister for space until 2019, he oversaw and was responsible for many of the policies that he referred to and the lack of an ongoing, sustainable strategy, or indeed any strategy, for our space sector.
A year ago, UKspace set out the urgent need for a coherent, cross-Government space strategy, and we have still not seen one. Labour would seek to support our sovereign capability in the space age and build on the UK’s proud history of technological innovation and space exploration. Labour is passionate about the long-term future of the space sector and its potential to provide high-skill, high-paying jobs across the UK and step up to deliver a long-term sustainable strategy for managing space debris with UK businesses and our national security at the heart of this interplanetary clean-up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing this incredibly important debate and on continuing to champion our space sector throughout his time as a Minister and in this House. I know that he recognises how important to the UK the risk of space debris is, as he noted in his excellent piece in The Times this morning. It is always a great pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). I share her passion for the amazing space sector.
Over the past decade, the space industry has become one of the UK’s fastest growing sectors. It currently employs more than 45,000 people and generates £16 billion annually. The UK has grasped the opportunity by encouraging space sector growth, facilitating the development of space ports to launch satellites from the UK and investing in the OneWeb satellite broadband constellation. But it is important to recognise that space is getting crowded. Although space may seem vast, the orbits around Earth are a limited natural resource, and we must use them responsibly and protect them for future generations, including my granddaughter. It was interesting to hear my right hon. Friend talk about staring at the stars with his daughter.
The growing issue of orbital congestion and space debris could limit the benefits that we get from space and, in the extreme worst case, prevent our use of it altogether, so where does that leave the United Kingdom? Space debris is a global challenge that requires an international effort to remedy, as has been said. Nearly 3,000 working satellites share those orbits, and it is estimated that there are 130 million pieces of debris, about 30,000 of which pose a significant threat.
In the next decade, we expect to see growth to more than 10,000 active satellites in orbit, and we do not want a similar growth rate of debris. The UK has active partnerships in multilateral, intergovernmental forums, including the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and its sub-committees, and the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee. We continue to lead in those forums, working with international partners to agree best practice, develop guidelines and support initiatives that enable and promote sustainability and limit the potential for accidents in space. To ensure that UK space operators meet international guidelines, approaches to space debris mitigation are a key part of UK spaceflight regulation that are considered during the licensing of their actives.
At the G7 in Cornwall last month, the UK facilitated an agreement between nations to strengthen our collective efforts to ensure the sustainability of space for all. That includes how we limit the generation of new orbital debris. We are not only talking; we are investing in technology to address this issue. Currently, our main mitigation against collisions between satellites and debris lies in our ability to detect, identify and track objects in space and take evasive action.
The UK Space Agency is working in partnership with the Ministry of Defence to improve our capability to monitor and warn of hazardous space events. In January, working closely with the UK Space Operations Centre, the UK Space Agency began piloting national collision warning services to enhance our national space surveillance and tracking capabilities. Also, joint civil and military space domain awareness helps to protect UK satellites in orbit and our critical national infrastructure, which is reliant on space services. However, as the amount of debris and the number of active satellites increases, accurately predicting potential collisions becomes harder.
The risk of collision and the number of false alarms can be minimised with better tracking and through the use of emerging and innovative new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, to sort through the mountains of data. However, if the volume of debris and the number of satellites in space continues to increase, as we expect, this action alone cannot fully mitigate the risk. Protecting longer-term UK interests in space will mean reducing the debris population and preventing the creation of new debris. We must look to tackle the cause of the problem, rather than just addressing the symptoms.
Space debris removal is not yet a common capability. However, space agencies, including NASA and the European Space Agency, have launched innovative programmes to combat debris, and the UK has played a real leading role in this activity. In 2019, we invested £80 million, through the European Space Agency, in debris and clean space activities, including research into detecting and tracking debris, lessening the burden of collision avoidance, limiting the production of more debris and cleaning up existing debris.
Working with Switzerland and through the European Space Agency, we are contributing to a satellite mission that will be able to capture and deorbit large pieces of debris. And recently, I had the great pleasure of meeting Astroscale to discuss its privately funded ELSA-d satellite, which right now is demonstrating technology that removes different satellites from orbit. In fact, it was absolutely fantastic to see. Both these missions are looking to utilise the operation centre that we built in Harlow precisely to manage and operate such innovative missions.
There is a commercial opportunity emerging in orbit servicing and in managing the safe disposal of satellites once they are no longer useful. Just last week, Edinburgh-based Skyrora announced a challenge to find and remove Prospero, the first British satellite to have been launched successfully by a British rocket.
Businesses across the world, but particularly in the UK, are developing the innovative technology to address this market, which is estimated to be worth over £2 billion over the next 15 years. We want UK industry to lead when it comes to the sustainable use of space. Last year, we awarded £1 million in grant funding to support projects led by United Kingdom companies, focused on mitigating the effects of harmful debris. This year, we will award a further £1.2 million to continue to develop the enabling technology and £800,000 to study the feasibility of a national mission to remove debris from orbit.
However, we recognise that UK leadership in this area can only trigger change if it is supported by international regulatory standards that require companies or nations to remove debris, in order to create a commercial market. Therefore, we should lead global discussions on the right safety and security norms, and ensure compliance with international obligations in space debris mitigation, while we invest in the research and development to best capture that commercial market of the future.
With significant strategic opportunities ahead, the UK needs to be the shaper of this evolving landscape. By taking leadership in space sustainability, the United Kingdom can drive national and international capability development, and regulatory advances. We can lead international action to establish rules governing the sustainable use of space through close working with allies and multilateral engagement. We must also continue to protect our industry and critical national infrastructure, and better understand the orbital environment through joint civil and military space domain awareness.
I can assure the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central about our imminent space strategy, which we will launch in due course. Timely and sensible Government support will allow us to grow our industrial and academic capability, in order to support UK industry in taking opportunities in the emerging orbital market. This activity could quite literally provide a rocket boost to the economy.
We have an excellent opportunity to secure a leadership role in space sustainability, and with it a bright, sustainable future for the space and satellite application industry, which will deliver benefits for generations to come.
Chris Skidmore [V]
Thank you, Mr Dowd, for your chairmanship of the debate. I thank the shadow Minister and the Minister for their contributions. It is clear that we share an equal passion for the importance of the future of space sustainability and what role space debris removal can play in that sustainability.
This is the first debate that has ever been held in Parliament on space debris, despite it being an issue that has been known about in the space community for more than 55 years, since the signing of the outer space treaty. The UK has a unique opportunity to show international leadership in this area, backed by future investment. I hope that space debris is part of the UK space strategy that the Minister outlined—it has every right to be so.
I have been contacted by a wide number of industry and academic experts. I am delighted that the Minister has met Astroscale, but I hope she might attend a roundtable of experts on space debris that I might organise in the future, with people from industry and academia, including Imperial College, the Open University and Leicester University. It is amazing how many people have been working on this subject.
We have the opportunity, just as we do with net zero, to set out a vision of net zero space. Let us be the country that does that, in the same way that we are the country that has led the charge on net zero. Net zero is so important now for setting out the future vision of our green economy. Setting out a future for our space economy can be built around a sustainable space environment, in which the UK can lead the way.
The Minister is doing a great job and I would urge her to think about how this issue can fit into her wider vision on space, and to attend the roundtable that I might organise as a result of this debate. I thank everyone for attending and speaking in this first debate on space debris and setting out why it is such an important and critical issue to resolve for our future, to avoid any future scenario where we are unprepared. The unexpected can be anticipated if we expect it, and I hope this debate has woken us up to the risks that space debris could case if it is not tackled for the future. I hope it places a marker in the ground—a sustainable marker, which can be removed, of course—that demonstrates that we can act, we need to act and we need to act fast in order to prevent collisions in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered space debris.
Written Statements
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Green Workforce
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
As we look ahead to publishing our comprehensive net zero strategy and hosting COP26 in the autumn, we must focus on how we invest in the UK’s most important asset—our workforce—so that people have the right skills to deliver the net zero transition and thrive in the jobs it will create. This builds on the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution set out in November 2020—the first step in capturing the once in a lifetime opportunity to lead the charge and pursue a global green recovery, level up the country, and support jobs throughout the UK as we accelerate on our path to reach net zero by 2050.
Today, together with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), we welcome the publication of the independent Green Jobs Taskforce’s report. The report brings together evidence on the skills needed in the green economy and sets out their independent recommendations for how the Government, industry and a wide range of stakeholders can work together to meet the important challenges and grasp the opportunities they have identified.
We are also pleased to announce the formation of a cross-cutting delivery group to maintain the momentum generated by the taskforce and drive action across the green skills agenda.
BEIS and DFE convened this taskforce of 17 individuals from diverse backgrounds in industry, academia, unions, and the education and skills sector to come together to advise the Government, industry and the education sector. The Government will now consider the taskforce’s rich evidence base and comprehensive recommendations ahead of setting out, later in the year, our net zero strategy.
But we are taking the first steps to ensure that green jobs are good quality, that they can be accessed by people of all backgrounds and in all parts of the country, and that workers in sectors and industries undergoing change can reapply their skills and expertise towards this new challenge.
In England, the reforms to the skills system set out in the recently published Skills for Jobs White Paper provide the foundation on which we can build. This programme of reform, which placed employers at the centre of our technical education system, includes the introduction of new T-levels, flexible apprenticeships, skills bootcamps and occupational traineeships. Earlier in the year, we marked a major milestone in the lifetime skills guarantee, with the roll-out of almost 400 qualifications which are now available and fully funded for any adult who has not already achieved a level 3 (A-level equivalent) qualification.
We will ensure that these programmes are directed to support more people to get the skills they need to move into green jobs, and consider where we might need to go further or faster to fill skills gaps identified by the taskforce. We are already making progress—skills bootcamps will, from July this year, support flexible training in key green sectors such as construction and nuclear; a green apprenticeship advisory panel is identifying existing apprenticeships that best support green career pathways; our free courses for jobs offer is supporting more adults to study fully funded qualifications in subject areas crucial for green jobs, such as construction, forestry and engineering; and a new emerging skills electrification project will identify cutting-edge skills in the battery/electrification sector, develop short, modular content to meet the needs of employers, and upskill the teaching workforce.
This report also highlights how supporting people to develop the right skills to thrive in this transition cannot be the responsibility of the Government alone. We want to see businesses step up and invest in training the green workforce, and so we urge them to reflect on the taskforce’s work and use it to inform how they can benefit from and contribute to the green industrial revolution.
The Government will continue to work closely with industry to ensure the employer-led skills system we are building through our ongoing reforms meets employers’ needs and reflects the fast changing shape of the UK labour market.
[HCWS176]
Publication of the Online Media Literacy Strategy
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
I am pleased to inform the House that the Government are today publishing our “Online Media Literacy Strategy”. This strategy is a complementary measure to the proposed Online Safety Bill and will play a critical role in allowing us to meet our ambition of making the UK the safest place in the world to be online.
Through this strategy, we want to improve media literacy across the country by providing direction to the sector. We also seek to highlight the challenges that all citizens face in navigating an increasingly complex media landscape, with an amplified focus on vulnerable and disabled users.
The strategy sets out our plans to ensure a co-ordinated approach to online media literacy education. We have established a media literacy framework that enumerates the skills we want citizens young and old to learn in order to navigate the online media landscape safely. We set out the key user groups on which we will direct particular focus to ensure an inclusive approach to media literacy. We lay out six media literacy challenges to provide direction to the media literacy sector. We also highlight the specific issue of misinformation and disinformation, and the potential for media literacy by design to assist media literate online behaviour.
We have engaged with a broad range of stakeholders from academia, regulators, civil society and industry, drawing upon their expertise to inform the strategy. This is only the beginning of our engagement with the sector, and we will look to work even more closely with these organisations and more to ensure the maximum possible impact from media literacy activity.
As our attention turns to delivery of the strategy, we will focus on taking forward a number of different initiatives. Alongside the strategy we are publishing the first annual Online Media Literacy Action Plan for the Financial Year 2021-22. The action plan sets out a number of initiatives to enact the strategy, from establishing a cross-sector media literacy taskforce, to working with teachers to help embed media literacy in schools, to collaborating with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations through a UK media literacy forum.
It will be important that we work productively with other key stakeholders across the sector. Ofcom has an existing statutory duty to promote media literacy. The Government’s efforts in the media literacy landscape will play a supportive and complementary role to that of Ofcom, by providing focus for organisations across the sector. We will continue to engage closely with Ofcom where there is a potential to increase the impact of our efforts.
Media literacy is a devolved policy and so the initiatives contained in the strategy will only apply directly to England. However, we are working closely with the devolved Administrations and intend to establish a UK media literacy forum to engage with our counterparts in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast and ensure we are achieving the greatest possible impact across the whole UK.
A copy of the strategy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS175]
Level 3 Qualifications Reform
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Today, I am pleased to announce the next stage of the Government’s reforms of post-16 qualifications at level 3 in England.
Reforming post-16 education and skills is at the heart of our plan to build back better and level up the country by ensuring that students everywhere have access to qualifications that will give them the skills to succeed. We have already improved the quality of level 3 study by reforming A-levels, redeveloping apprenticeship standards and introducing T-levels. This work is vital to the reforms and will create a coherent system in which all classroom based qualifications that sit alongside A-levels and T-levels are good quality.
These reforms build on the Skills for Jobs White Paper, which set out our ambition to improve the opportunities for young people and adults to progress into skilled employment by linking technical qualifications to employer-led occupational standards. These standards form the core of new T-levels and the reforms published today will ensure that this will also be the case for other technical qualifications on offer at level 3.
High-quality qualifications are essential to helping everyone, whatever their age, to get good jobs and realise their ambitions. Whether they want to go into skilled employment or into higher education (HE), achieving a level 3 qualification will be an important stepping stone. The system also needs to be adaptable, so that we train people for the jobs of the future.
We are grateful for the thoughtful contributions to our second-stage consultation on level 3 qualifications, and for the high level of interest in these important issues. Though our goal of a slimmed-down, higher-quality system remains the same, we have listened carefully to feedback on the range of qualifications that are needed. Our policy statement sets out where we see the value in qualifications that can be taken as part of mixed study programmes alongside A-levels, as well as the limited range of subjects where it is justified to take specialist alternatives, such as in performing and creative arts.
Our reforms are bold and will lead to significant change from the current system. We continue to be unapologetic about both the need and our commitment to raise standards in technical education, as we have already done for GCSEs, A-levels and apprenticeships. It is vital that in a fast moving and high-tech economy technical education closes the gap between what people study and the needs of employers. We are proposing to put many of these changes into law through the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill.
We will streamline and improve the quality of the level 3 system. We are strengthening the pathways to progression, creating clearly defined academic and technical routes with qualifications leading to academic study, and/or skilled employment. This clarity of purpose will allow students to see more easily how their study will help them to progress.
We will ensure that all qualifications sitting alongside A-levels and T-levels provide progression for learners, respond to the needs of employers and meet rigorous quality standards. Funding approval will be removed for technical qualifications overlapping with wave 1 and 2 T-levels from 2023, and with wave 3 and 4 T-levels from 2024. We have listened carefully to feedback on the pace of implementation of these reforms and will phase the introduction of reformed qualifications, starting with a digital pathfinder for introduction from 2023, scaling up in the following year and completing the reforms by 2025.
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (the institute) and Ofqual will work to ensure that qualifications approved for funding are high-quality, meet the needs of employers, and stay up to date with our evolving economy. The Education and Skills Funding Agency will continue to have overall responsibility for funding decisions.
We also recognise that getting a quality offer at level 2 and below is key to making sure that students have clear lines of sight to level 3, apprenticeships, traineeships, and directly into employment. As a result, we want to improve study at level 2 and below alongside our reforms to level 3 qualifications. We are considering feedback to the call for evidence which ran from 10 November to 14 February and will consult on proposals for reform later this year.
[HCWS177]
Transport Decarbonisation
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Transport decarbonisation is a dull way of describing something much more exciting and far-reaching.
Because transport is not just how you get around. It is something that fundamentally shapes our towns, our cities, our countryside, our living standards, our health, and our whole quality of life.
The Transport Decarbonisation Plan that will be published today, the first in the world, is not about stopping people doing things: it is about doing the same things differently. We will still fly on holiday, but in more efficient aircraft, using sustainable fuel. We will still drive on improved roads, but increasingly in zero emission cars. We will still have new development, but it will not force us into high-carbon lifestyles.
Transport is the largest contributor to UK greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), with road transport alone accounting for almost a quarter of our total emissions in 2019. We must deliver a step change in the breadth and scale of our ambition to reduce transport’s GHG emissions to reach net zero. In March 2020, “Decarbonising Transport: Setting the Challenge” committed to bring together a transport decarbonisation plan to deliver transport’s contribution to carbon budgets and net zero across all forms of transport.
The plan published today is genuinely high ambition—technically and feasibly—for all areas of transport and notes that decarbonisation will rely, in part, on future transport technology, coupled with the necessary behavioural and societal change. Because of the pandemic, we are already seeing some of these changes in behaviour happen much faster than expected. We have seen homeworking change traditional commuter and leisure trips, video conferencing has changed business travel and we have seen a rise in cycling and walking all of which could save thousands of tonnes of carbon themselves.
In the 16 months since March 2020, we have published ambitious policies to transform England for cycling and walking with an investment of £2 billion and more than 300 cycling and walking schemes already being delivered. We have published plans to fundamentally reshape our bus network along public service lines and have created Great British Railways to make services easier to use, to grow the network and build on the huge acceleration of electrification we have already seen since 2010.
The commitments set out today include linking local infrastructure funding to solutions that cut emissions—aligning that investment to our net zero programme, improving public transport, increasing support for active travel so mass transit and cycling and walking play a bigger role than ever, a net zero rail network by 2050, net zero domestic aviation emissions by 2040 and leading the transition to green shipping.
The plan also sets out a world-leading pledge to consult on the end of sale of all new, non-zero emission road vehicles by 2040 at the latest.
As a major step towards that, alongside the plan we have published a consultation on phasing out the sale of all new non-zero emission heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) by 2040, demonstrating our commitment to tackle the second largest source of domestic transport carbon emissions and furthering our ambition to decarbonise UK roads.
This comes with a Green Paper, which will set out options for a new regulatory framework requiring vehicle manufacturers to improve the efficiency of new road vehicles. This will allow us to meet our phase out ambitions whilst creating new jobs for the automotive sector and delivering certainty to drivers.
To underpin our petrol and diesel phase out dates and help achieve them, we are also publishing a 2035 Delivery Plan today. This plan brings together all of our committed funding streams and measures for decarbonising cars and vans, from across Government, into a single document. It outlines the key timelines, milestones and how we will monitor progress towards our commitment to deliver mass ownership of zero emission cars and vans.
Leading by example, our decarbonisation plan will increase the level of ambition for the whole central Government fleet, moving the target date for the 40,000-vehicle fleet to be fully zero emission forward to 2027.
Today we are also publishing the Government’s response to the Electric Vehicle Smart Charging consultation. The response commits to laying legislation later this year to ensure that all private EV charge-points meet smart charging standards. The transition to EVs is central to Government’s net zero commitment but will also increase demand on the electricity system. Smart charging can help mitigate these impacts. This legislation will play an important role in driving the uptake of smart technology, which can save consumers money on their energy bills.
We also intend to tackle the challenges of decarbonising the aviation and maritime sectors head on. Today, we are also launching a Jet Zero consultation that commits the aviation sector to a net zero emissions target by 2050 and sets out our approach and principles to achieve this. The consultation focuses on the rapid development of technologies in a way that maintains the benefits of air travel and maximises the opportunities that decarbonisation can bring for the UK.
The decarbonisation plan sets out further commitments for our maritime sector, establishing our ‘Course to Zero’, consulting on how we get more ships plugging in to our decarbonised grid, exploring how we phase out emissions from vessels, and considering how we take advantage of the UK’s strengths in the maritime sector to support growth in green technology and shipbuilding,
The Government are also publishing their Rail Environment Policy statement, which will set the direction for the rail industry on environment issues and inform the forthcoming sustainable rail strategy. The document will look at traction decarbonisation, air quality, decarbonising the rail estate and a range of other environmental-related issues on the railway, including biodiversity and waste.
This suite of announcements marks a major leap forward in delivering ambitions to decarbonise transport and we are the first country in the world to do this, taking a firm leadership position as we host COP26 later this year.
The plan is ambitious, consumer friendly and world leading. It will create economic growth, new industries and jobs and help us build back better and greener.
[HCWS174]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
National Lottery
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the objectives of the National Lottery.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, since its launch in 1994, the National Lottery has been an unprecedented success, raising over £43 billion for community, arts, heritage and sports projects across the UK. The primary objective of the National Lottery is to raise money for good causes and we have no plans to change that.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I hope that she may be prepared to reflect. The National Lottery has not been quite so successful in recent years; life has changed and we should have new objectives. The big change has been the problem with the nation’s health. We have the worst number in Europe of deaths from Covid. I believe that the Government should review the objectives of the National Lottery and see whether a greater focus on health for the nation should be considered. One of the lottery’s great benefits is that it reaches the hard-to-reach groups in society. As many play the National Lottery with scratch cards and so on, the Government should consider how that link might be used to incentivise and reward players for moves to better and healthier eating and drinking and exercise rather than simply focusing on money rewards, as it does at the moment. Let us put the real health of the nation at the heart of this objective rather than simply money.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is of course right that the pandemic has highlighted the importance of the nation’s health. He will be aware that health is one of the objectives of the National Lottery Community Fund, but, more broadly, this Government have an ambitious target for reducing, in particular, obesity. The lottery must provide additionality in its funding, not replace core government funding.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, will the Minister undertake to review the abolition of the HLF grant for places of worship, which has resulted in congregations without financial resources finding it much harder to compete for maintenance and development funding? The effect of abolition has been profoundly demoralising for small rural communities and areas of deprivation in coastal towns, such as Hastings, where the church building can be a source of local pride and community cohesion but is in danger of falling into disrepair and representing a sense of abandonment by local and national government.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to take the right reverend Prelate’s point back to colleagues in the department, but I hope that he will recognise the value of the work that the National Lottery Heritage Fund does.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, with reference to my interests as set out in the register, if a person plays the six draw-based National Lottery games each week, excluding scratch cards and online games, they spend £21. With the current fuss being made about affordability in gambling, is it right that the state-franchised lottery is encouraging people to “dream big” and gamble over £1,000 a year?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not sure that I would agree with my noble friend and call affordability a fuss—I think that for once I may have a number of your Lordships on my side. Affordability is important but, as my noble friend knows, we see the lowest level of problem gambling in the lottery games. As I said in response to the earlier question, the primary purpose of the lottery is to provide money for good causes and 30% of the revenue raised has done that since its inception.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, in the last major debate that we had on the National Lottery, which was three years ago, I made the suggestion that more could be done to inform the public of the immense contribution of the National Lottery to good causes at local and regional levels, for instance at physical points of sale. That suggestion was not taken up, but if one of the effects of the past year has been an increased awareness of local community and community pride, perhaps this is something that might now be looked at.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Earl makes a very interesting point. I know that all the lottery distributors pride themselves on their ability to reach deeply into communities and to make those local connections.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the National Lottery is a significant success and enjoys huge public support. Research shows that there is also public support for other national lotteries, such as the Postcode Lottery. Will their needs for greater parity of prize money and reach be reconsidered so that more funds can be made available for good causes?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that we are planning to carry out a review of society lotteries, to which he refers. It will be an early check based on evidence to see whether the increased limits have had the intended impact and that the limits are enabling the sector to increase the proportion that goes to good causes.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, research shows that replacing lottery duty with gross profit tax could, over a 10-year period, lead to more than £6 billion extra for good causes and the Treasury. The Minister just reminded us that returns to society are a key objective, so can she explain why the Government have rejected the recommendation from your Lordships’ Gambling Industry Committee? Will she publish the Government’s own analysis of this proposal?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government reviewed all the evidence available and, based on that, concluded that to protect income for good causes and tax revenue for the Exchequer—which, obviously, is also spent in the public interest—the current model of taxation should remain in place.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, while I accept the good intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I cannot agree with his proposal. I support the National Lottery’s existing remit to raise funds for community, arts, heritage and sports projects. Recently, 40% of lottery funding was for health, education, environmental and charitable causes. I estimate that more than £1 billion was awarded over two years to respond to Covid-19—the largest contribution made to pandemic relief beyond that made by government. This seems to illustrate the scope for substantial National Lottery expenditure on health. What is the average annual expenditure on health by the lottery in normal times and what percentage of total lottery spending is accountable for health?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I echo my noble friend’s reflection that the lottery distributors played an important part in responding to the pandemic and getting funding to organisations all around the country. There is no specific figure on health, but he is right that the National Lottery Community Fund has that as one of its four key objectives. More broadly, the work of all the lottery distributors could certainly be argued to be making a difference to the nation’s mental health and, particularly in the case of Sport England, to our physical health as well.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, while the National Lottery has funded many celebrated projects of national and international significance, including London 2012, the V&A in Dundee and the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, it is also welcome that many National Lottery grants are for £10,000 or less and directed towards small grass-roots projects. What plans are there to increase the numbers of these small grants? Can the Minister give some indication of the support given to community projects where there is a lack of know-how and infrastructure to make a successful application?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It is obviously up to the National Lottery to decide those splits between larger and smaller grants, but I know from my recent conversations, particularly with the community fund, that the emphasis on “People in the Lead”, to use its language, is absolutely central to its top three priority approaches. My understanding is that it has a great focus on supporting groups that might otherwise find it difficult to apply for funding.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for saying that there will not be that radical a change to the lottery, but can we look at making sure that sport is seen as something that actively supports the health budget? Can the Department of Health let the sporting world know what type of activity would give it the best return?
Baroness Barran (Con)
This Government have been committed to supporting both elite and—in the case of the noble Lord’s remarks—grass-roots and community sport. I would be amazed if my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care were not aware of that too.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Global Education Summit
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what outcomes they expect from the Global Education Summit being co-hosted by the United Kingdom and Kenya on 28 and 29 July.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw attention to my entry in the Lords register: my additional honorary ambassadorial role with the Global Partnership for Education.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, at the Global Education Summit we will set the Global Partnership for Education on a path to secure its five-year funding target of $5 billion, providing the single biggest-ever boost to children’s education opportunities around the world. We will also diversify GPE’s donor base, work with our co-host to ensure that eligible developing countries sign a political declaration on education and secure further support for the girls’ education objectives endorsed by the G7.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, the Global Partnership for Education works in 76 different countries around the world to build the efficiency, equity and volume of education systems in those countries. It is in those low-income countries—where, for example, two-thirds of girls do not complete primary school—that education is most required, and we know how important it is. Given that the Government have become probably the first country in history to host a global summit to refinance education at the same time as cutting the budget, what will the Government’s strategy be to ensure that that gap is filled by others but also that we achieve that $5 billion target that will see so much more education available throughout the world?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the importance of the $5 billion target. With that money, the GPE could support 175 million girls and boys to learn, reach 140 million more students with professionally trained teachers, enrol 88 million more children in school, and help Governments save $16 billion through more efficient spending. The UK is leading the way in the run-up to the summit. We have pledged £430 million, an uplift of 15% on our largest ever pledge to the global partnership. With our co-host, President Kenyatta, we are urging other nations to step up, as well as the private sector and charitable and philanthropic foundations such as the LEGO Foundation, which recently pledged $23 million, which is very welcome indeed.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, it is estimated that there has been a $210 billion reduction in domestic financing for education caused by falling GDP and tax revenues triggered by Covid. To pick up my noble friend’s point, it is really important that the voices of low-income countries are heard. What is the Government’s assessment of President Kenyatta’s call for broader and bolder action on debt relief, and for addressing long-term global liquidity needs through a meaningful new allocation of special drawing rights by the IMF and the redistribution of these to lower-income countries?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, of course, the pandemic has threatened education finance at a time when it is needed most. We are very glad that President Kenyatta has written to partner countries calling for them all to protect pre-pandemic levels of education spending. We are looking forward to working with him at the summit to address exactly these points.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Global Education Coalition that children who are victims of the pandemic should be prioritised through remote learning? There are also other deserving groups. What about teaching children who are injured or who cannot attend the school because they live close to minefields? Surely this is hardly the time to cut UK aid to organisations such as the Mines Advisory Group by almost 50%.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, investing in education is the key to solving many of the world’s problems. It can improve global health and save lives and is vital to levelling up society, boosting incomes and ending poverty. As the noble Earl points out, this is about more than simply teaching. That is why education is a major priority for the Government and why we are spending more and pledging our largest ever sum to the global partnership.
Baroness Fall (Con) [V]
I congratulate the Minister on co-hosting this very important meeting. I am sure he will agree that we should set an example by addressing our own educational challenges in the first instance. A recent report by Onward drew attention to 200,000 primary school students who have no alternative but to attend a school rated by Ofsted as inadequate or requiring improvement. Most of those correspond to areas in need of investment. Does the Minister agree that levelling up must start with education and that more should be done to improve these schools by incentivising the best managers and teachers in the country to take them on?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is right. Levelling up in education is important, domestically as well as globally. Thanks to the education reforms that began when she was in government, more children are attending good or outstanding schools. We want to see that commitment to high-quality education continue throughout people’s lives, which is why the lifelong learning entitlement will make it easier for adults and young people to study more flexibly throughout their lives.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB) [V]
My Lords, grateful as we are for the Government’s commitment of £430 million to the replenishment fund, is it not likely that other Governments will also use the impact of Covid to cut aid and investment in girls’ education? What practical promises of commitment in hard-cash terms have been made to date by the G7 countries and G20 countries? Assuming a shortfall, how will Her Majesty’s Government make up the gap and close the deal, ensuring that the Global Partnership for Education has the promised resources to educate girls? We said we must, so will we?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
At the recent G7 summit, the Prime Minister secured a landmark commitment from all the G7 partners to pledge at least $2.75 billion to the Global Partnership for Education ahead of the summit. We look forward to receiving more from this group, and call on others to make similarly ambitious pledges.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, referenced, the impact of the pandemic on learning creates a greater need for countries to increase their investment in education just at the moment when their economies have shrunk. Will the UK ask the summit to set a goal for nations to increase the proportion of GDP that they spend on education year on year?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I say, one of the cruellest aspects of the pandemic is that it threatens education finance at a time when it is needed most. That is why President Kenyatta has written to partner countries calling for them to protect pre-pandemic levels of spending and to work towards increasing it towards the global benchmark of 20% of total public expenditure. The Government support that call to action and hope that the summit will be an opportunity for our partners to make commitments not only to mobilise financing for education but to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of that spending.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the link between good family planning and girls being in education is exceptionally strong? Good access to family planning means smaller families, with more of those children in schools, and families and communities becoming more prosperous. Can he assure us that the cuts to family planning will be reversed in time for the Kenya meeting?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to point out the many factors that have an impact on people’s access to education. In May the Prime Minister set out the girls’ education action plan, which sets out the steps that we will take to deliver our global objectives on girls’ education.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UK has secured—within the G7 communiqué, at least—$2.75 billion for the GPE. Will the UK Government consider expanding their pledge to encourage other countries to do the same to ensure that we genuinely reach the $5 billion GPE target?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As my noble friend may know, we are the GPE’s largest donor, having contributed more $1.6 billion since it was set up in 2002, and our new pledge will take our contributions to over $2 billion. Our contributions are currently around 13% of the GPE’s income and we encourage other nations, the private sector and philanthropic organisations to step up and do the same.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
Apart from encouraging ambitious pledges to reach the $5 billion target to replenish the GPE, what other steps will the Government take to ensure that other resources are leveraged to improve literacy, given that, even before the pandemic, nine in 10 schoolchildren in lower-income countries were unable to read proficiently by the age of 10?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the UK’s contribution to the GPE is only one of our tools in achieving our ambitions. Between 2015 and 2020 the UK supported over 15 million children in gaining a decent education, of whom 8 million were girls.
Lord German (LD)
I draw attention to my interests in the register. The Covid pandemic has highlighted the significance of good health and hygiene practices in schools. Hygiene-related diseases are closely linked to increased student absenteeism, and poor hygiene facilities often lead to the exclusion of girls from school. At this important summit, will the UK Government be supporting resources going into water, sanitation and health projects in schools, or will they be too embarrassed by the cuts in support for those programmes that they are making?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point to health being an important factor. Through the GPE’s Covid-19 response grants, we have been able to support the Government of Tanzania in building 1,000 new classrooms to help with overcrowding and social distancing when schools return there. Similarly, in Rwanda, GPE funds are supporting handwashing facilities for 2,500 schools. So through this work we are tackling health outcomes as well.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Domestic Abuse: Older People
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to investigate the nature of domestic abuse of older people; and what support they offer to victims of such abuse.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con) [V]
My Lords, building on the landmark Domestic Abuse Act, the Government will shortly publish a dedicated domestic abuse strategy, ensuring that a fitting level of attention is given to the prevalence and types of domestic abuse, including efforts to improve understanding of who is affected. We are committing to ensuring that all victims are supported and we closely monitor and assess needs and how best to meet these, together with providing continued dedicated government funding for specialist services, including for the elderly.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
Reports show that there is an increased risk of older people experiencing domestic abuse, especially in relation to financial and care dependencies and barriers to reporting abuse during the pandemic. Does the Minister accept that there are no reliable figures on the abuse of older people and that therefore they are a hidden group? Much more publicity should be given by the Government about where older people can go to get advice and help. Is the Minister aware that the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales has produced an information booklet to advise older victims, and will she agree to commission a similar action in England?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I was pleased to be able to speak to the commissioner in Wales. I think it is always advantageous to learn from good practice elsewhere. We know that the number of older people experiencing domestic abuse has increased in the last year. The Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that 5.5% of adults aged 16 to 74 experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2020. But I look forward to seeing more refined figures in the future, which I think is what the noble Baroness is alluding to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, do the Government have a plan for the effective monitoring of this type of abuse?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
I thank my noble and learned friend for his question. There are various ways in which we can monitor this sort of crime. I have mentioned the Crime Survey for England and Wales. We have the National Domestic Abuse Helpline and of course we have police figures as well. So there are numerous different ways of measuring this.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, what assessment, if any, have Her Majesty’s Government made of the number of people over 65 who have been victims of non-fatal strangulation, suffocation or sexual violence? What support is provided to older victims of these types of abuse?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, that is a very valid question in light of the legislation we have just passed. I do not know the overall figures for non-fatal strangulation but certainly we saw it as sufficiently worrying that we passed legislation to ensure that it was outlawed. In terms of people over 65, the House will know that over-75s are now being included in ONS statistics. I think that is a very good move.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
During the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, tabled amendments on ensuring that local authorities recognised and reported abuse of older people and ensuring entry powers for social workers in situations where abuse is suspected. The Government argued that neither amendment was necessary as the necessary training and powers already exist. However, training to recognise older victims of abuse can be piecemeal across different public bodies and agencies. What is being done, and by whom, to ensure that people in public-facing roles are properly trained to recognise and report such abuse?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
The noble Lord raises a really valid point: underlying all of this is the need for sufficient training to enable agencies and local authorities to refer onwards. Indeed, because tier 1 local authorities now have a duty placed upon them, that need is emphasised even further.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I know from personal experience that the perpetrators of coercive control can be so cunningly malevolent that the victim may be oblivious to it. What steps are the Government taking to raise awareness among older people of this kind of domestic abuse?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
I recognise that the noble Lord speaks from experience, which he has shared with the House on many occasions; I thank him for that. He is absolutely right to point out the very clever and cunning ways in which this abuse can take place. Older people in particular may not even realise that they are being coercively controlled. Of course, in the work that we do across agencies, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, it is up to the various people who work both within government and in the various agencies which support this work to be trained to be able to identify and then refer on these people for the help that they might need.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register as an adult social care provider. In that context, many elderly people will have quietly suffered during the pandemic, but it is also incumbent on us to have a look at those carers—not the paid carers but voluntary carers—within home settings who have had zero respite during this time. I ask my noble friend to take this back to see why social workers are now, a year or so later, not going out and doing the regular visits and reviews that they were doing before the pandemic.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I do not have exact information for my noble friend. I totally agree with her that there may have been a lot of things going on behind closed doors that we do not yet realise. Clearly, we are opening up a bit more next Monday and, horribly, some of these things will come to light. But I will get her information on just how much one-to-one engagement has been done during the pandemic, because of course there is social distancing to be cognisant of as well.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
I declare an interest as chair of the National Commission on Forced Marriage. I ask the Minister to look at ensuring that the strategy for older people includes the special needs of older victims of forced marriage.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
The noble and learned Baroness is right that the effects of domestic abuse and forced marriage are not confined to any one age group. She will also know that 297 forced marriage protection orders were made last year, and that between 2008 and this year nearly 3,000 orders have been made. This must go some way to try to prevent it but the point that she makes about the ongoing trauma post forced marriage is absolutely right.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
The Domestic Abuse Act removed the upper age limit from the definition of domestic abuse and included relatives in the definition of “personally connected” but the elder abuse charity Hourglass found that only 0.7% of crimes against older people result in prosecution. With more tools in their toolkit, how can the police improve on this appalling prosecution rate and make abusers understand that there will be consequences of their cruelty?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
I agree with the noble Baroness: it is very concerning that that statistic evidences such low rates of conviction. It is probably multifactorial: people are unwilling to come forward, as I said earlier, perhaps not even knowing that they are victims of domestic abuse. As I said earlier, training for agencies and front-line staff will be crucial in identifying domestic abuse, bringing perpetrators to justice and supporting those victims in the future.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Northern Ireland: Jewish Community
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the concerns expressed by the Jewish community in Northern Ireland about its future as a result of the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the concerns raised on this matter. It is a positive step that it was possible to agree with the EU a sensible extension on chilled meats moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland until 30 September this year. This extension means that Northern Ireland consumers will continue to be able to buy chilled meat products, including kosher products, from Great Britain, and allows for further discussions to continue on a permanent basis.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, the Jewish community in Belfast and Northern Ireland has made, and continues to make, a very rich and compelling contribution to the life of our country. Indeed, the sixth President of the State of Israel, Chaim Herzog, was born in my former constituency in north Belfast, and his son Isaac is the current President of the State of Israel. Very worryingly, the Chief Rabbi and Jewish leaders in Belfast have expressed great concerns about the operation of the protocol and the continued viability of the Jewish community. The Prime Minister has also expressed concerns. The Minister referred to a grace period, but that runs out in September. Will he give a guarantee that, in all circumstances, he and the Government will take whatever measures are necessary to guarantee the supply of kosher food into Northern Ireland for the Jewish community?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes some very good points: it is vital that we find a way to ensure that goods flow as freely as possible between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where they are destined for Northern Ireland consumers, while ensuring that goods moving onward into the EU are subject to the appropriate requirements to ensure that EU rules are observed and the single market protected. On the noble Lord’s point about the Jewish community, it is a key focus for government to support that community. I take note of the points he raises and, although I cannot give a guarantee, every effort is being made to move forward and find solutions to these problems.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is vital that Jewish people in Northern Ireland can practise all aspects of their religion, including access to kosher food. It is deeply regrettable that the Government have so far failed to deliver a practical, long-term solution in the form of a veterinary agreement. The Governments of Switzerland and New Zealand have managed to secure such an agreement with the EU. What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that freedom of religion for Jewish communities in Northern Ireland is protected through a veterinary agreement?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The Jewish community has played an integral role in shaping the journey and identity of this nation, particularly in Northern Ireland. Our society is richer for its diversity and the Jewish community is proud and shining testament to that. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, as I said earlier, every effort is being made. UK and EU officials are engaging multiple times each week to discuss the issues around the implementation of the protocol. We also meet the EU regularly under the formal protocol joint and special committee structure, with the most recent meeting of the joint committee having taken place last month.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that if the Government had carried out a full impact assessment on the Northern Ireland protocol before agreeing to it, many of these culturally sensitive issues would have been highlighted? To push further on the EU-UK veterinary agreement, does he not agree that this is yet another issue that could be resolved by signing up to such an agreement?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I do not agree with some of the points that the noble Baroness makes, because the protocol was really a compromise. It was always clear that it was a delicate balance designed, crucially, to support the Good Friday agreement and to maintain Northern Ireland’s place in the UK while protecting the EU single market. The question, of course, is how it is applied. I point out to her that under the detail of the protocol, it is not simply about putting a goods and customs border in place between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For example, Article 6(2) says that the UK and EU
“shall use their best endeavours to facilitate the trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom … with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible”,
so we need to look at that.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Dodds made clear, the Jewish community has made a huge contribution to the city of Belfast, including providing a unionist Lord Mayor as far back as 1899. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it would be both tragic and outrageous if this latest crazy manifestation of the EU’s implementation of the protocol now forces that community to leave Northern Ireland altogether? How do supplies of kosher food to a small Jewish population in any way threaten the integrity of the EU single market?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I do not disagree with my noble friend’s last point. Again, the Jewish community has made an important contribution to society in Northern Ireland. It is essential that that community receives the kosher products that it requires, for eating and for religious purposes. A key focus is to support the community in this respect. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, it is vital that we find a way forward to ensure that these goods flow smoothly.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, why was this important issue not addressed by the Government and their supporters before now? Can the Minister tell us what meetings were held with the Jewish community in Northern Ireland when the protocol was being negotiated by this Government, and what did the Government tell that community about how they would avoid the impeded access to kosher food, which has a serious impact on the legally protected human right of religious practice? If the Government will not solve this through a veterinary agreement, as I and many others are calling for, how will they solve it through negotiating a specific exemption? The Government must pursue one route or the other.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I do not have any information to hand as to what meetings took place at the point when the protocol was being negotiated. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State met the Jewish community last week and impressed upon it that the Government were urgently seeking solutions to the flow of important goods for that group.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Although I welcome the extension for chilled meats between GB and Northern Ireland, we are just kicking the can down the road. Will my noble friend give a commitment that we will negotiate an SPS agreement, such as has been agreed between New Zealand and the EU? Will he further give the House a commitment today that there is no threat to the availability of kosher or other such foods from the protocol or any other legislation currently before the House, such as the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend’s question takes us slightly beyond the immediate subject. However, on supplies to supermarkets, which I think is the gist of her question, a lot of work has gone on to ensure that supplies continue to fill their shelves in Northern Ireland. We announced in March that arrangements for supermarkets and their suppliers who are trusted traders supplying food will continue until October, meaning that they do not need to complete health certificate paperwork. But as they have made clear to us, notwithstanding the considerable government investment to support these efforts, there are still some real challenges to sort out.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, the diverse country that Northern Ireland has become over recent decades is a source of great local pride but, as the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Caine, have said, there is nothing new about the special place that the Jewish community holds in Ulster, which dates back to the mid-18th century. Speaking at a Policy Exchange event last week, the Northern Ireland Secretary, Brandon Lewis, said:
“None of us can tolerate or be willing to accept”
a threat to the Province’s Jewish community because of the protocol. If that is the case, why did the Prime Minister choose to sign up to it?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As I said earlier, the protocol was a compromise. We agreed something exceptional, it is fair to say, to control goods moving within our own country in the interest of peace—to apply EU law in our own country without any democratic say beyond a vote, as the House will know, in four years’ time. Again, that was in the interest of peace. No other country has agreed to such a thing and if it is to be sustainable, it must operate in a pragmatic and proportionate way—not just like any other external border of the single market.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, there is a joke that the structure of Jewish holidays can be simply put as: “They tried to kill us; we won; let’s eat”, so availability of kosher food is important, especially to a small community as in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right honourable Brandon Lewis, is a true friend of the community, and I am grateful, as has been said, that he found time to meet the Chief Rabbi and the Board of Deputies last week. However, can my noble friend the Minister assure me that the department will do whatever it can to resolve this issue and allow the Jewish community to celebrate, and eat?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Perhaps a discussion on the importance of eating is for a separate debate but I take the first point that my noble friend made with the due seriousness it deserves. We are mindful that many communities in Northern Ireland have specialised foods which are deeply important to their culture and spiritual beliefs, and we will always act to ensure that these are adequately supplied. However, I assure my noble friend that, in the supermarkets we have been in touch with, we are pleased to note that there is no disruption at this time, although there were specific issues during Passover which he will know about, and which DAERA and Defra, working together, helped the sector to navigate.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Overseas Development Assistance
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12 July (HCWS172) setting out the fiscal circumstances under which they will return to spending 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income on Overseas Development Assistance, as stipulated in the Official Development Assistance Target Act 2015, whether they intend to bring forward primary legislation in this area; and if not, why not.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 and to spending 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance. The decisions taken are in line with the spirit and framework of the Act, which envisages situations in which departure from the 0.7% may be necessary. Yesterday’s vote provided the House of Commons with a further opportunity to consider the return to 0.7%. In the light of that and our continued commitment to the 2015 Act, there is no need to bring forward additional legislation.
Lord Fowler (CB)
I am afraid that that reply does not convince me. Surely the vote yesterday means that an Act of Parliament passed by both Houses has been overturned by a last-minute Motion passed by just one House, in spite of clear government commitments in November that they would bring forward proper legislation. I will make one short point: I hope the Minister recognises that the vote yesterday does not represent the view of this Parliament.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend that the 2015 Act had provision for suspension of the 0.7% depending on major events such as the one we have just experienced with Covid. I politely remind him that we have seen the largest drop in our economy with regard to our GDP in 300 years, and the Act made provision for adjustments to the rate in light of such events.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I drew attention to my entries in the Lords’ register. When the Government confirmed the withdrawal of military support in Afghanistan they stressed, rightly, the critical importance of advocacy of the rule of law, democracy and our support for development in that country as an alternative way forward. Yet, as just one example of these cuts, a project for rural women in Afghanistan has been cut in the third year of its four-year programme, resulting in thousands of women who will no longer receive literacy training or vocational educational training, or be able to complete their courses. Do not the Government think the Taliban will be cheering this decision, delighted that we took it yesterday in the House of Commons? Do they really think that we promote the rule of law and democracy by breaking our own laws in the way that has just been announced by the Chancellor and Prime Minister?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord. We have not broken our own laws. As I pointed out in my supplementary answer to my noble friend, this is a suspension of the current percentage which is allowed under the original Act. We have committed through the debate yesterday that we will revert to the original Act’s commitment when the economy allows us to do so.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, as the sponsor of the legislation through this House, I calmly say to the Minister that, when he refers to the spirit of the legislation, that spirit was based on a two decades-long consensus that we should not only meet our obligation to the world’s poorest but sustain it. We have enshrined it in a law that the Government are now moving away from, using executive authority. If the Government wish to bring forward changes, they should bring forward legislative changes and not simply Motions. My question to the Minister is very simple and he will have the answer because it is in his briefing pack, I am sure. If the new fiscal tests are linked to the pandemic, it follows that they would have been met when we did not have a pandemic. Under which calendar year in the past have those physical tests been met?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
Just to restate the point, Section 2 of the 2015 Act envisages circumstances in which the 0.7% target is not met due to
“economic circumstances and, in particular, any substantial change in gross national income”
and
“fiscal circumstances and, in particular, the likely impact of meeting the target on taxation, public spending and public borrowing”.
We last met those requirements in 2018-19.
Lord Judge (CB)
Please can the answer to this question not be that the law has not been broken? We had that last week and it was not an answer to my question. Is it consistent with the sovereignty of Parliament that an obligation or duty imposed on the Government by primary legislation can be expunged or suspended by Ministerial Statement?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, at the risk of being tedious, we have not in any way expunged the Act. We have suspended it in line with the section that I cited in the previous answer.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, for many years Her Majesty’s Government have taken great pride in regularly publishing reports on the impact of overseas aid in terms of the millions of lives saved, children educated and jobs created. Will my noble friend say whether any similar impact assessment of the likely effect of this reduction in our aid budget has been carried out by the Treasury or the FCDO using the same established methodology? If so, can it be shared to inform future debates and votes, and if not, why not?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend will know, we are undergoing a rationalisation by moving DfID into the FCDO. The Foreign Secretary has agreed that he will focus all of government’s investment and expertise on issues where the UK can make the most difference and achieve the maximum strategic coherence. The FCDO is working through what this means for individual programmes, in line with the priorities identified. We will of course report in detail when those arrangements are concluded.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester [V]
My Lords, the Chancellor’s Statement published on Monday finally outlined the meaning of the much-repeated but undefined government line that 0.7% aid spending would be restored when the fiscal situation allows. Will the Minister accept that to many working in the field of international development, these criteria point to a permanent rather than a temporary cut in overseas development, which in any case was due to change and has changed because it is a percentage of gross national income? Does the Minister recognise that this decision represents a terrible sentence, probably of death, for thousands of children and risks doing untold reputational damage to Britain’s leadership in international development?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I respectfully disagree with the right reverend Prelate on that assertion. We will absolutely be prioritising the budget for the programmes of the most urgency and impact, so I do not accept that. I also point out to him that we have made considerable investments during the Covid crisis by helping other countries through our large investment in COVAX and, indeed, the Prime Minister’s commitment at the G7 to make a large number of vaccines available outside this ceiling of 0.5%.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this decision goes against a long-standing consensus across Parliament. It is against the Conservative Party’s manifesto and against the law and, most importantly, it is against the national interest. As a direct result of these cuts, more people will be forced to flee their homes and more people will turn to extremism in a less secure and stable world. To pick up the point the noble Lord, Lord Bates, made, we have been told in this House that officials carried out an equalities impact assessment which looked at our bilateral country spending. Can the Minister give us a guarantee this afternoon that this will be made public, and quickly?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, it is important to remind the House that we have done this in the largest crisis to affect our country since the war and the largest recession in 300 years, with borrowing of £300 billion—14% of GDP—to deal with the crisis. It means that there has had to be some give in the system. We are committed to re-establishing it as soon as the economy allows it, and I am sure that the information the noble Lord asked for will be available soon.
Baroness Northover (LD)
As the Minister who took the Bill through the House, I can tell the noble Lord that this is totally contrary to the spirit, let alone the letter, of the law. Has the Treasury made an impact assessment of its new policy on the validity of the integrated review and the UK’s ability to deliver a successful COP 26?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness that it is in breach of the Act. The Act provides for accountability to Parliament in the form of a Statement in the event that the Government do not meet the 0.7% target, to include the fiscal reasons on which the Government rely at that time. This week we have set out clearly and transparently how the Government will approach that task.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I struggle to understand how this new policy can be described as temporary. In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, my noble friend the Minister referred to one part of a financial year in the past 20 years, and that was only one. The Written Ministerial Statement refers to “a sustainable basis”. Given the implication of this new policy, it is important to be exact, so can my noble friend define exactly what is meant by “sustainable”?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, that will be for when we have re-established a fiscal position that allows us to meet our commitments without having to borrow money on a day-to-day basis. That is the position we are in now, and I respectfully remind noble Lords that it will be the next generation who will pick up the tab for this huge amount of borrowing, and something has to give. That is what has happened in this situation.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, given what the Minister has just said, I wonder how he would respond to the devastating observation by John Major yesterday that we seem prepared to build an expensive national yacht—which I would describe as a floating embassy—that we neither need nor want, while cutting back support for thousands of malnourished and starving people around the world who we could and should be further helping to feed.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I disagree with the noble Lord. The vessel to which he refers will be to promote Britain and trade and lead to wealth creation. The cost—some £200 million, I understand, has been mooted—should be amortised over the life of that vessel. The running costs will be covered by the companies using it. It will bring wealth to this country, and wealth creation is a high priority for us at the moment.
Lord Parekh (Lab) [V]
My Lords, 0.7% of gross national income is a moral obligation, it is an international institutional obligation because of our membership of the United Nations, and it is also a statutory obligation, so supersession of this obligation requires enormously compelling circumstances. I cannot see why it has to give way to others, especially when the amount involved is no more than £4 billion out of a total of more than £600 billion that we are going to have to raise. The Government say that this constraint in expedient and temporary. What measures are we taking to make sure that what is temporary does not become permanent? The Government say that they will return to 0.7% when the fiscal situation is established on a sustainable basis. That is a very vague term. How do we decide what is a sustainable basis? It takes a long time to work it out and, more importantly, it is a term which can be understood in several different ways. How can we be sure that the Government will return to 0.7% and what reassurance can be given to people who are deeply worried about the step that the Government are about to take?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I disagree with the noble Lord that this is a small sum of money when it would be 1p on income tax and is something like four times the amount committed to hiring 50,000 more nurses and four times the amount committed to hiring 20,000 more police officers. We have set out, as agreed in the Commons yesterday, the criteria for re-establishing it and committed to re-establishing it when they are met.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, given that the amount of funding is a little smaller than earlier, despite the fact that it is extremely generous in global terms, this is the moment to look more carefully at the way in which these funds are spent? Might it be possible, for example, to introduce open tendering rather than automatic disbursements of funds before there is any open competition, as is happening at the moment and has been happening for a long time? Might he also be willing to consider some successful monitoring? There are many ways of monitoring, but at the moment the funding does not seem to be subject to such things and certainly it is not published. Will the Minister consider those two items crucial when he delivers the outcomes of this slightly lower sum of money being spent?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I strongly agree with my noble friend. We need to be much more stringent in our assessment of how the money is spent. We saw from the St Helena Airport incident, for instance, that money can be wasted. I am sure that with less money available there will be much more scrutiny. That tends to be a natural reaction in organisations. I will take back my noble friend’s useful suggestions to the Treasury.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I apologise to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, that the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We will take a moment or two for people to escape the Chamber before we move on to the next business.
House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 14th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Market Surveillance (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 June be approved.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 July.
Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) (Amendment) Order 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the draft Order laid before the House on 14 June be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 8 July.
Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 and 21 June be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 and 12 July.
Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:31 - Division conducted remotely on Lord Faulkner’s amendment - Ayes: 254 / Noes: 224 - Lord Faulkner’s amendment agreed.
Lord Greenhalgh
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 June be approved.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 July.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations were not revised to take account of the evidence of the benefits of 100 per cent smoke-free pavement licences, which have been implemented over the last year in a diverse range of local authorities and which have received strong public support”.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, when the Business and Planning Bill came before the House in 2020, a cross-party amendment was tabled saying that a condition of licence would be that outdoor seating areas were required to be smoke free. It was signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—who I am delighted to see in her place—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who cannot be here today but has said she strongly supports this amendment to the Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and me.
Commenting on our amendment, the Local Government Association said
“it sets a level playing field for hospitality venues across the country and has a public health benefit of protecting people from unwanted second-hand smoke … If smoking is not prohibited, pavement areas will not become family-friendly spaces.”
Noble Lords in all parts of the House supported our amendment, but it was not accepted by the Government, who instead inserted a requirement in the legislation that
“the licence-holder must make reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted.”
Two-thirds of the public polled earlier this year did not think that the legislation went far enough and said they wanted smoking banned in the outdoor seating areas of all restaurants, pubs and cafés. Fewer than one in five opposed a ban. This was a large sample of more than 10,000 people carried out by YouGov for Action on Smoking and Health.
A growing number of councils under Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat control have recognised that smoke free is what the public want and have taken action to make it happen. These include cities such as Newcastle and Manchester, counties such as Durham and Northumberland, unitary authorities such as Middlesbrough and North Lincolnshire, and metropolitan boroughs such as North Tyneside, Gateshead and the London Borough of Brent.
These regulations were debated in Grand Committee last Thursday. One of the most telling contributions was by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. He is unable to be in the Chamber today but is aware that I plan to mention his speech. Noble Lords who read it in Hansard will see that he took apart the various government assertions about smoke-free pavement licences, including the scare that if smoking were banned outside pubs and cafés
“it could lead to significant closures across the country”.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, said about that:
“In spite of repeated challenges, not one shred of evidence was ever produced by the department to substantiate that assertion, frequently made by the smoking pressure group FOREST. Such evidence as we have from the introduction of the smoking ban in 2007 showed that more people said that they went to the pub more often than said that they went less often.”—[Official Report, 8/7/21; col. GC 387.]
In a letter to Manchester City Council last August, the Secretary of State urged it not to burden businesses with more red tape. The reality is that far less red tape is involved in implementing Manchester’s 100% smoke-free seating, which requires only putting up one no smoking sign. As every venue in the city is the same, the policy is clear to the public and businesses.
Sir Richard Leese, the leader of Manchester City Council, says:
“Since the pandemic, more and more businesses in the city are expanding outside where the public increasingly expect and enjoy smokefree spaces. By introducing smokefree pavements across Manchester, we are welcoming everyone back to our vibrant cafes, bars and restaurants, while driving forward our vision for a smokefree future.”
Manchester’s experience is repeated across the country. Norma Redfearn, the elected Mayor of North Tyneside, which also has 100% smoke-free pavement licences, says:
“We have found that implementing entirely Smokefree seating has been easy and simple for businesses to follow. We have worked closely with our business community to support them with its implementation, they have not raised any serious concerns about it and there have not been any compliance issues.”
There is good evidence from Canada, where smoke-free patio areas have been required by a number of provinces, that they are popular and easy to enforce and improve the health of hospitality workers, with no evidence of an adverse impact on business. If smoking is allowed, passers-by, customers and, above all, staff, who have no choice, will be exposed to significant amounts of tobacco smoke. Where patio smoking bans—similar to pavement licences here—were implemented in Canada, second-hand smoke exposure went down by up to a quarter. Where there was no ban, it went up. Hospitality workers in places where smoking was allowed on patios in Canada were found to be exposed to significant levels of toxic chemicals.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received requests to speak from the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Blake. I will call them in that order.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, which he very effectively introduced. The Government claim that they want the UK to be smoke free by 2030, but they have a funny way of going about this.
Years back, despite the efforts of the tobacco industry, working cross party we introduced into the United Kingdom the provision that public places such as pubs and restaurants should be smoke free. Was that not a transformation? It made sense during the pandemic that pavement licences should be granted, as people needed to be more distant from each other. Most people welcomed these new arrangements. Pavements were often widened to accommodate them. Does the Minister agree that the key thing to remember here is that these areas are simply extensions of the areas inside and need to be smoke free as well—for people’s health, for them to be family-friendly and to move closer to the smoke-free aim that the Government apparently have?
We ran into all the usual tobacco industry-briefed objections last year and—surprise, surprise—it turned out that the noble Lord’s department had not properly consulted the Department of Health on the matter and had to scurry to do so. Has it fully done so this time?
The objections from the tobacco industry are so familiar to the Department of Health. The noble Lord, Lord Young, took these objections apart last week. I wish we had a stronger weapon than an amendment to an SI that was going to be just slipped through, having been debated in Grand Committee, where noble Lords cannot vote and would knock out the whole SI if we did. This SI will barely have been registered by most in your Lordships’ House. Thank goodness the noble Lord, Lord Young, noticed and flagged it to the rest of us.
If this amendment is lost, the Minister should not take that as the will of this House. I am fully confident that if and when we debate this in legislation, there will be overwhelming cross-party support in this House for helping to tackle the terrible scourge of smoking. The department should be very wary of the briefings and influential lobbies that push it in another direction. I hope I do not hear very familiar objections voiced by the Minister in a minute. On these Benches we strongly support this amendment and are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for tabling it. I hope he calls a vote.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Faulkner for bringing this really important issue into the Chamber. His very well-informed and passionate speech does not need too much adding to.
I want to bring in a slightly different dimension. My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, both referenced the speeches in Grand Committee, which were really well put together; I recommend that everyone have a look at them in Hansard. We should also look at what we have learned over the last 18 months of the devastating impact of the coronavirus. We have been on an incredibly steep learning curve in understanding how the virus has impacted on the people who live in our communities. We have a duty, surely, to look at all the evidence before us.
Covid-19 is often described as a cruel virus and it has exposed health inequalities in the most vicious way. Surely we must learn from the knowledge that those suffering from underlying health conditions have been disproportionately affected by the virus. Smoking is a major contributory factor to those health conditions. Do we not have a responsibility to do everything in our power to reduce exposure to the impact of smoke inhalation? I am referring to both the customers and the staff in the premises we are talking about.
I would also like to emphasise the points that the noble Lord, Lord Young, made in Grand Committee about the lack of evidence and the lack of consultation with local authorities, which would have demonstrated that there has just not been the evidence that we should be concerned about the impact on the businesses we are talking about.
We have an opportunity to make an improvement to the provisions in the Building and Planning Act 2020. Of course, the irony is that the Act was brought in specifically to deal with the impact of coronavirus. I hope we will recognise the public health improvement outlined in my noble friend Lord Faulkner’s amendment and that we will all come together to show our support accordingly.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for tabling this amendment and I thank noble Lords for an interesting debate on this matter. I will take this opportunity to respond to the noble Lord’s amendment. In Grand Committee I was not able to answer fully all the questions noble Lords raised on smoking issues relating to the temporary—I emphasise that—pavement licence extension regulations. I welcome the opportunity to address these issues in greater detail.
In Grand Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness Lady Wheatcroft, all challenged me on the passing of these regulations and the potential passive smoking impacts. The impacts of passive smoking are very much a key concern and a top priority for this Government, which is why we should look to tackle this issue strategically. We will be a publishing a new tobacco control plan later this year, setting out our ambitious plans for England to be smoke free by 2030. The tobacco control plan will consider areas of regulation to strengthen in support of this aim.
In the very short term, it is right that we act to support hard-hit hospitality businesses to boost their capacity and continue their recovery. For this 12-month extension of the pavement licence provisions, the Government consider local and business-led discretion over implementing smoke-free policies to be the most appropriate approach. Businesses are able to introduce their own smoke-free policies if they wish to go further than the regulations require.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned, local authorities are also able to set their own local smoking conditions where appropriate and where local decision-makers believe it is reasonable to do so. A number of local authorities have already implemented such local smoking ban conditions within outdoor seating; these include the city of Manchester, as mentioned by a number of noble Lords, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Durham and Northumberland. This makes it clear that local conditions can be implemented where it is appropriate and desired locally.
I also remind noble Lords that the pavement licence guidance sets out ways in which the requirement for provision for seated and non-seated smokers could be met, such as displaying clear no smoking signs, the removal of ashtrays from smoke-free areas, and a minimum two-metre distance between smoking and non-smoking areas wherever possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referenced international comparisons. I emphasise that the UK is a world leader in tobacco control, and it is important that we share our learnings on the journey towards a smoke-free 2030. We must also learn from the successes of other countries. We will be closely monitoring the outcome of the Canadian approach. International studies of smoke-free parks and beaches, including in New Zealand and Canada, have found evidence through litter collections of continued smoking, suggesting that successfully enforcing any restrictions will involve considerable resource, including training people, such as park staff, in enforcing new policies.
I hope noble Lords will recognise that there is a real commitment in government to a smoke-free United Kingdom, but at this stage we are looking for an extension for a year. This is a temporary pavement licence extension of provisions that have worked incredibly well, as many noble Lords commented in Grand Committee. I emphasise that this Government are committed to reducing the smoking impacts of outdoor eating and drinking, both in terms of these regulations and, importantly, in future policy. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lady Blake for their splendid speeches and strong support for my amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, reminded us of the transformation that smoke-free legislation has brought about in our society. There is no need for us to go into detail about that now because that is no longer an issue between the parties or, indeed, with the British people; it is accepted. That is one of the reasons why I find it so inexplicable that the Government did not take advantage of the pavement licences provision to extend that smoke-free regime to cover the outside areas. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, the pavement outside a pub or a café is essentially an extension of the indoor rooms of those premises, and the people who go there, particularly those with children, are entitled to enjoy a smoke-free environment.
My noble friend Lady Blake referred—very tellingly, I think—to the impact of smoking on people with severe health conditions, perhaps brought on by Covid. Limiting the exposure of those people to second-hand smoke is particularly important and we should be doing all in our power, including making pavement licence areas smoke free, to achieve this.
I thank the Minister for his speech and the considered way in which he has approached this issue, and I recognise that he has repeated the Government’s commitment to a smoke-free Britain by 2030. That is good news. But I ask him and other noble Lords to reflect on whether the adoption of smoking as part of the pavement licence helps that process or makes it more difficult. I think most people would argue that it is making it more difficult. It is an unnecessary obstacle.
I am pleased that the Minister also referred to passive smoking concerns and the fact that the Government now accept them. Again, this is another reason why pavement licences should be smoke free.
Interestingly, the Minister did not answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about consultation with the Department of Health over these regulations. We did not get an answer to that question a year ago or last week in Grand Committee, and we have not had one today. It is fair to say that the Department of Health takes a rather different view of these matters from that of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The Minister also did not refer to the extraordinary letter that the Secretary of State in his department wrote to Manchester City Council last August attempting to talk it out of its proposals with a series of arguments that, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, demonstrated last week in Grand Committee, were completely spurious.
The House should have an opportunity to express a view on the regulations and on my amendment. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Charities Bill [HL]
Wednesday 14th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Charities Act 2022 View all Charities Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 17(a) Amendment for Special Public Bill Committee - (14 Jul 2021)
Environment Bill
Wednesday 14th July 2021
(3 years, 4 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-VIII(Rev) Revised eighth marshalled list for Committee - (12 Jul 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
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 order of request.
The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a 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 on the group.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will not detain noble Lords for long. Suffice it to say that I supported a similar amendment in the Fisheries Act that was also tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Krebs. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said in his speech on Monday, this is just as much in the interests of monitoring what species are caught, not just fish but by-catch such as cetaceans and sea-birds. I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the consultation. I do not share the gloomy aspect of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on this issue; I know these things take time and I am sure the Government want to move forward with this. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I commend the amendment and thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for having moved it so eloquently. I endorse everything he said. I have visited ICES in Copenhagen a couple of times and have been hugely impressed. It has had a lot of footfall over the years from visitors such as the Scottish fishermen, and I think its research is first class. I am delighted that, having left the European Union, we continue to rely on ICES for the excellent research it produces.
I would like to ask my noble friend one question for when he comes to sum up the debate. I know that in the fullness of time, if maybe not in the context of this Bill, remote electronic monitoring will be used on all vessels in British waters. Can he confirm that it will be an essential criterion for the issuing of licences to fish in British waters that the vessel will be fitted with remote electronic monitoring equipment?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 262A, which was so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. They were both still going strong when we finally halted the debate on Monday, just before midnight. As noble Lords have made clear, this is an issue left over from consideration of the Fisheries Bill, which we thought was being resolved. However, as with other amendments dealing with the marine environment, the consequences are ongoing and equally valid for this Bill.
Without REM, we will not have the full and verifiable real-time documentation of catch on which all other calculations are based. This solid evidence should form the backdrop to a truly sustainable fisheries management plan. It will enable us to be more responsive to the movement of different fish stocks around our warming waters. It could also provide new economic opportunities where fishing opportunities are aligned with the real-time scientific evidence. For example, the evidence could potentially allow more species to achieve Marine Stewardship Council sustainability certification, which would boost sales in the retail sector.
In the past, the Government argued that this policy would be a distraction from vessel monitoring systems and aerial surveillance. These have their place but do not provide the detail that cameras on board the vessels would, particularly on the types of species caught and to ensure that discarding is not taking place. We argue that we need to embrace all the opportunities of improving data that new technology can bring, and that REM is one of these. It is also the case that many boats already use REM on a voluntary basis, so all this amendment would do is to raise the standard to the best and create a level playing field based on a true system of sustainable fishing.
During consideration of the Fisheries Bill, we were told that Ministers were thinking about introducing compulsory REM. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, quoted a helpful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, which talked of consulting on the use of REM in the first half of 2021 with implementation following thereafter. Can the Minister say what the result of these consultations was?
Meanwhile, the Secretary of State told us in a separate meeting around that time that he was also sympathetic to the proposal but needed time to consult others, including the devolved nations, to ensure there was common consent about implementation. A year has gone by since the Secretary of State said that, so perhaps the Minister can update us on the status of the consultations and those negotiations. We believe the case for the introduction of REM is compelling, so I hope we can be assured that is imminent. In the meantime, we support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and look forward to the Minister’s response.
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 the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for raising this important issue and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her contribution in the last session. The Environment Bill, when combined with the Fisheries Act, will place the Government’s 25-year environment plan—including its goal of securing clean, healthy, productive and biologically diverse seas and oceans—on a statutory footing. The Bill enshrines environmental principles through a policy statement in law for the first time. Ministers must have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy. This includes making fisheries policy and will complement the eight objectives found in the Fisheries Act 2020, six of which, as the noble Lord will certainly know, are purely environmental in focus.
The policy statement required under the Environment Bill will be supplemented by the joint fisheries statement. The office for environmental protection, established by the Bill, will have a scrutiny function to report publicly on the action that government is taking to improve the environment. It will be able to consider fisheries legislation relating to the environment. As we have already discussed, the inclusion of “marine” within the meaning of the natural environment in the Bill ensures that it is fully included within each element of the environmental governance framework.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, notes, the Government support the principle behind Amendment 262A and, although we cannot support the amendment, I can assure him and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we are taking action in this area. We remain committed to increasing the use of remote electronic monitoring, but we need some flexibility to work through how best we can increase its use. The amendment proposes powers to mandate remote electronic monitoring. The Government do not believe these powers are necessary, as Section 36(4) of the Fisheries Act 2020 provided the Government with the necessary powers to mandate the use of REM.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also noted, last year we launched a call for evidence, which my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble spoke about during the passage of the Fisheries Bill, now an Act. The call for evidence has given us much food for thought. We published our response in May 2021. The responses received were predictably mixed, some wanting pace and broad coverage and others more cautious. A number of responses described global best practice, which will, of course, be enormously helpful in getting our own approach absolutely right.
For example, New Zealand, Australia and Denmark were cited as having good experience which we intend to learn from and build on. Their schemes, as well as existing and previous schemes in England and Scotland, were commendable because they had clear objectives. They considered the scale of the programme and included government support. It is important that the global best practice quoted in the call for evidence noted that it is vital to work with the industry. We want to work collaboratively with the industry, scientists and other stakeholders to make the best use of it. We have begun engagement with the industry and stakeholders, following the call for evidence, and will ramp up further now that we have boosted the resources in Defra looking at remote electronic monitoring.
Remote electronic monitoring could be so much more than a mere enforcement tool, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also noted. However, a wide range of questions still need to be answered, for example on cost and data protection. This amendment would make it harder to consider all the options available to us as well as new approaches in future. Do we want cameras recording the catch or monitoring the gear underwater? Do we want strain gauges to show how heavy nets are or soak timers that show how long gear has been in the water? Do we want temperature gauges, or all these things? How will we process and store the vast amount of information that we would be collecting? Artificial intelligence may well play a role here, but we need to develop our ability to handle and use the data in step with rolling it out on boats. These are important issues that we will be working with the industry and stakeholders on over the next few months.
Another reason why this amendment does not work for us is that we want to move at pace, as we have said, but we are not convinced that extending REM to all vessels of over than 10 metres is necessary or proportionate or, indeed, better than a more risk-based or nuanced approach. Some fisheries, the pelagic fisheries, for example, tend to be very clean: they catch only what they specifically target, even though the vessels are sometimes very large, so the data provided and the harms recorded would be low. So it is too for a 15-metre vessel potting for crabs, which is unlikely to catch anything other than crabs. It may well be that some vessels under 10 metres would benefit from a form of remote monitoring as well.
We are pressing ahead with plans to ensure that vessels under 12 metres have electronic vessel monitoring systems on board, as it is vital to gain a better understanding of where they fish and their fishing patterns. Getting these basic fisheries management tools in place is vital. There is much more we need to do in this space, as well as focusing on remote electronic monitoring which, while helpful, is nevertheless just one tool. Some important calls for evidence and consultations on wider fisheries management are being published in the next few weeks and months that I hope the noble Lord will find useful. They will demonstrate that we are making good our intention to manage our fisheries more sustainably, using all the tools at our disposal.
The noble Lord mentioned advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES. The letter he quoted raises some complex issues that Defra, alongside colleagues in the devolved Administrations, is considering carefully, but it is clear that North Sea cod stocks remain in a poor state. As he explained, the use of remote electronic monitoring will, among many other benefits, help improve our scientific understanding, including of stocks.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who wants to ask a question before proceeding.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for that good reply. I will sum up in just a second but I have a specific question. He said, and I take some encouragement from this, that he wanted to “move at pace”. When will we next hear back from the Government about what they are going to do specifically on REM and, hopefully, how they are going to apply the method of data collection?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. We have a number of consultations and calls for evidence coming up over the next few weeks and stretching out over the next few months. I will set out the exact choreography to him in a letter, but obviously that work needs to happen before any firm dates can be set. I hope that provides a clear agenda of what we are doing and that the next steps will go some way towards answering his question.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and actually quite encouraging reply. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who has been very supportive in this area, as has the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. This is one way that we can start to make progress on what we understand about the marine environment, by catching that data and, hopefully, encouraging much better management of that environment. I look forward to the Minister’s letter and to the fisheries management plans that we were promised being concluded. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 266. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 110: Conservation covenant agreements
Amendment 266
The Earl of Devon
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with others to this Clause, is intended to add formal requirements for an agreement to qualify as a conservation covenant.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I shall also be speaking to my Amendments 267, 268, 269, 274 and 276. These are amendments to Part 7 of the Bill, which introduces into English law for the first time the important and radical concept of conservation covenants. Following in part the Law Commission’s 2014 report on conservation covenants, the provisions of Part 7 are a hugely significant change to long-standing principles of English property law—a radical departure, in the words of the Bar Council, from the centuries-old rule that only restrictive covenants benefiting neighbouring property can run with the land and bind successors in title.
The Law Commission proposed a stand-alone Bill to introduce these significant changes, as would be appropriate. It is therefore regrettable that such radical new property provisions, including significant departures from those proposed by the Law Commission, find themselves tucked away in Part 7 of the Environment Bill and are afforded only a short slot for debate on the eighth and last day of this Committee.
I am grateful to all noble Lords willing to consider these provisions and to the NFU, the CLA, the Bar Council and many others for their support and insights. Having started my career as a junior property barrister, the intricacies and implications of the significant change to the law of real property are clear to me, but they may not be to noble Lords who do not keep a copy of Megarry & Wade to hand, so excuse me for providing some context.
Conservation covenants are central to this legislation. They are the principal vehicle by which the private finance will be brought into the brave new world of biodiversity net gain—the means by which developers will be able to ensure that the biodiversity lost to their development will be off-set, plus 10%, on someone else’s land. If successful, they will be a key tool in turning the environmental tide and an important alternative source of funding for farmers, whose basic payments are rapidly diminishing. They are an exciting development on which the Government are to be congratulated and which many in the farming community, including me, strongly support.
However, as the Minister described on day six of the Committee, the Bill creates an entirely new market in biodiversity net gain, the likely size and extent of which the Government are unwilling or unable to specify—despite repeated requests. It is described by some as the wild west of ecosystem services. It is a new frontier, and I am aware that a number of major financial institutions are prospecting with keen interest.
I am therefore surprised that the Government cannot estimate the likely size of the market. It must be a simple calculation to estimate how much biodiversity will be lost over the next decade, given the Government’s proud housing and development aspirations and the recent publication of the updated biodiversity metric. An impact assessment should be possible, and it seems a mistake to launch such a radical new land use and property law scheme without at least trying to understand what its impact will be. You do not venture west without a telescope to see where you are going. Can the Minister please say whether the Government will be able to provide an impact assessment of biodiversity net gain by Report?
Given this background of considerable uncertainty, the aim of my amendments is to ensure that this new market actually works, that trust and good practice in conservation covenants are established at the outset and, most particularly, that we are able to protect our natural environment and those who work it from the disastrous impacts of poorly conceived covenants entered into by cash-strapped farmers dealing with sophisticated for-profit commercial operators.
This is a complex area of law, and the covenants entered into will have long-standing—potentially perpetual—implications for generations. If they are wrong at conception, both farmers and their land will suffer and the market will not succeed. If they are right, well drafted and clear in their terms, they will be a vital tool to achieve the biodiversity net gains we all aspire to.
In legislating for conservation covenants, the Government have departed significantly from the Law Commission’s cautious recommendations by introducing for-profit companies as responsible bodies capable of entering into, registering and enforcing conservation covenants. The Law Commission proposed that only public bodies, registered charities and local authorities be able to enter into such covenants but, in their efforts to inject the energy of private markets and finance into this sector, the Government have opened it to any private body that the Secretary of State designates, so long as at least some of the body’s main activities relate to conservation.
In response to this proposal, the Bar Council stated:
“We do not see that there is any case for this. A for-profit company does not appear to us to be an appropriate body to hold the benefit of such covenants.”
It noted the danger of a private, for-profit entity being able to recover exemplary damages and the potential for abuse of a system that may allow for-profit companies to enter covenants for tax management purposes—that is, to adjust land values.
Conservation covenants bind successors in title and are able to be registered as local land charges on the land charges register. In the Land Registry’s own words,
“land charges are generally financial charges or restrictions on the use of land which are governmental in character and imposed by public authorities under statutory powers”.
It is therefore a major departure from standard Land Registry practice to permit for-profit enterprises to wield such quasi-governmental functions, particularly as the Minister has admitted that we simply do not know how they would work in practice.
There are multiple other significant and potentially dangerous implications to entering into a conservation covenant. I have already noted the right to claim exemplary damages from a landowner who unwittingly breaches the covenant—an extraordinary remedy in the hands of a for-profit company—plus the fact that the covenant binds successors in title, thereby banishing once and for all English property law’s long-held aversion to the perpetual control of land by the dead hand of one’s predecessor. Beware the zombie habitat banks—and here I am not being facetious. Conservation covenants will bind land to a particular use by default in perpetuity, and the land management prescriptions that may be agreed in writing now between a farmer and a developer might well fail the test of time, particularly given that this has never been done before. As the Minister so clearly explained last Wednesday, there are simply not ecologists and consultants currently in the market who know how to make this happen. It has never been done before, and we are entering wholly uncharted territory.
I ask noble Lords to consider the intervention of the RSPB on Exminster Marshes, which I have mentioned previously, which showed that even the most well-funded and well-intentioned land management prescriptions can have disastrous implications for the flora and fauna they aim to protect. In that case, on taking over the marches from traditional pasture farmers, the RSPB set about 20 years of intervention, removing livestock, minimising pest control and flooding fields to create an artificial wetland. When ground-nesting birds all but disappeared and Canada geese took over, the RSPB abandoned those practises, restored ditches and reintroduced pest control and grazing cattle. Ground-nesting bird numbers are now increasing again, but all those steps towards recovery would be likely to be in breach of a conservation covenant had one been put in place 20 years ago.
Part 7 offers only limited statutory defences to a breach of covenant, and it is no defence to a claim for breach that the farmer’s other property would otherwise have been damaged. Thus, if a farmer is faced with an imminent flood, caused perhaps by a beaver damming the local river upstream, which will wipe out his stored grain after harvest, it would be no defence to a breach of covenant if the farmer redirects that flood to a field subject to a conservation covenant prohibiting standing water. Assuming that he damages a nest site for a pair of cirl buntings, he will be facing a claim for damages in excess of £70,000 plus exemplary damages.
Equally of concern is that, in absence of provision to the contrary, the responsible body is free to transfer its interests to any other responsible body unilaterally. Thus, the local farmer may negotiate and agree the outline terms of a conservation covenant with a local developer’s ecologist who he knows and trusts, leaving the complicated details to be worked out as the habitat bank is developed, only to find that the local developer transfers its interests to the ecosystems services department of an international banking conglomerate with no local presence and a for-profit obligation to maximise shareholder returns.
I know that I am presenting a parade of horribles here, identifying all the things that can and might go wrong. However, that is the job of a lawyer being asked to advise a client entering a new and radical agreement.
This brings me to my principal amendment, Amendment 267, which seeks to ensure that conservation covenants are executed by deed and not merely by signed writing. As any law school graduate knows, signed writing in this modern day can be achieved simply by an exchange of email evidencing sufficient intent to be bound to an agreement and no legal advice needs to be given on their execution. Therefore, a conservation covenant tying land to perpetual obligations could conceivably be created by no more than an exchange of messages, which do not even need to state that they are intended to amount to a conservation covenant so long as it appears from the language that a covenant was intended. Amendment 266 addresses that anomaly.
Defra’s draft fact sheet on conservation covenants released last week recognises the danger of entering into agreements without legal advice and states that the Government’s forthcoming advice will recommend that those entering conservation covenants take advice. Will busy farmers even read that guidance? Amendment 267 will ensure that legal advice is sought such that all conservation covenants that are entered into are properly drafted to achieve the effects required.
In conclusion, consider a hypothetical because lawyers love a hypothetical. The typical English farmer is in his late 60s. He is seeing his BPS payments decrease year on year and the margins on which he subsists are rapidly decreasing. He disagrees with his children about to the future of the farm, and he cannot understand the myriad government strategies being trialled elsewhere. However, the farm having been in his family for generations, he does not wish to take the Government’s money to retire.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Devon and his forensic legal approach to these issues. In this case, I am highly persuaded by his arguments. Fifteen minutes ago, I had relatively few doubts about this chapter on conservation covenants, but now I seem to have loads of them. I should also say that this is my first appearance in this Chamber since March 2020, and it is good to be back.
I shall speak to my Amendment 276A in this group. I should say at the outset that it is very much a probing amendment. There is no doubt that overgrazing on many of our hills and commons has been a problem for several decades. One of the best things that we could do for biodiversity in these areas is to find a way of reducing the number of grazing mammals or changing the variety of them or possibly, in some cases, removing them altogether. That is what the amendment seeks to do. I hope it would enable the peat and blanket bog to rebuild itself to help the climate change agenda and to improve the biodiversity of the common in question.
It appears that ever since the Commons Act 2006 it has been difficult to buy grazing stints without having also to buy the land to which the stints are attached. As I understand it, this linkage was made under the previous CAP regime in an effort to limit grazing numbers, as linkage to the dominant tenement restricted the number of stints that the tenement could tolerate for overwintering on its own land. This regime also meant that the stint holders tended to farm adjacent to the common, which helped to keep the link between the stint holders and the management of the commons.
Now, of course, we are entering a completely new land management regime, ELMS, so it seems that it would be in the interest of conservationists and conservation organisations, such as Natural England, for them to be able to buy stints without having to buy the farm to which they are attached. I know Natural England is supportive. It also seems that such a regime would also be in the interests of the farmer and the commoner. He or she would be able to sell some of their stints, even to the extent of selling all of them, without having to sell their farm and/or their home. Life under ELMS is going to be very different and maybe even difficult for some of these farmers, so the more flexibility that we can grant them, the better.
If the right to buy that I am proposing were limited to “responsible bodies” as defined under this chapter, I believe there would be no chance of other farmers, landowners or even shooting tenants moving in and buying these stints for their own purposes. I hope that these stints are either going to disappear altogether or at least be managed for the benefit of the environment.
I am aware that the law and history surrounding commons are immensely complicated, and I am certainly no expert—unlike some noble Lords, I am sure—but I know enough to realise that tabling an amendment such as this is the equivalent of sticking my hand into a wasps’ nest. That is the reason why I felt that consultation, although hopefully not for too long, would be a good idea, and why in this instance I put “may” rather than “must” at the beginning of the amendment. I know that Natural England approves of my intentions, and I hope the Government will support the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is my pleasure to welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I had not actually realised that he was not here because I have seen him so often on screen. It is good to see him.
I have a slight confession to make. When I first looked at these amendments, all my working class instincts—which have served me quite well over the past 70 years—started coming out about supporting something that seemed sensible but was from a landowner, and then another landowner came in with another amendment. However, I fought down those suspicions and in fact I welcome the concept of new conservation covenants in the Bill.
I would probably benefit from some more explanation. I know the noble Earl, Lord Devon, gave an extremely comprehensive introduction to this topic, but I still have a few small queries. However, I want to put on record the Green group’s support for these amendments. They appear to be an essential tool for modifying the law of land ownership towards a greener system that understands that land is the primary source of all real wealth, which is held in trust by humans on behalf of all species and future generations.
Regarding the noble Earl’s introductory speech, the minute that anyone uses words like “offsetting” and “market”, all my green instincts come out. I have a slight problem with those words because both those things normally mean a complete scam as far as environmental issues are concerned.
This would be a landmark change to the law because it expands on some traditions in English land law—common land, public rights of way and other traditional rights and obligations arising under various circumstances—but the amendments in this group also highlight some of the real difficulties of the law of the land. So much of land law is focused on formalities, and if the necessary formalities are not met then everything can unravel.
Amendments 266, 267 and 268 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, focus on the formalities needed for a valid conservation covenant. This is where I would like a little more explanation, particularly if the noble Earl is going to push them through to the next stage.
Amendment 276 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, probes another issue, one that I find quite perplexing, the question of why Clause 125(8) explicitly states that
“the Secretary of State has no liability with respect to performance of any obligation … under the covenant”
during any time that the Secretary of State is custodian of the covenant. Why have the Government chosen that approach? If they are not responsible during this time, who is? Will these important natural sites go untended, unmanaged and uncared-for into abandonment? Unless the Government can give some convincing reason, it seems that Amendment 276 would be an important change to the Bill—in fact, to law—to ensure that these covenants are upheld and natural sites protected.
I once again commend the inclusion of these covenants in the Bill, and I hope noble Lords can iron out these few small queries so that the covenants work as effectively as possible.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I share all the reservations expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. In dealing with perpetuity in this section of the Bill, the Government seem quite laid back about it, whereas my suggestion of perpetuity earlier on in the Bill caused an attack of the heebie-jeebies. I find this strange because here we are dealing with individual farmers, who, as the noble Earl pointed out, may often be vulnerable, while in the case of biodiversity gain we are dealing, by and large, with professional builders, who are in a completely different position when it comes to understanding the law and in the state of their finances. In both cases, I support perpetuity but when it comes to dealing with individual farmers, we must have something which is much more cautious and much safer.
I agree with the noble Earl that there really is no place in this system for commercial enterprise. Nature changes. What happens in the course of perpetuity—what the right action is—is going to move; it is never static. If there is a conservation obligation—say, to keep a certain number of ground-nesting birds in a particular space—and 10 years later a big badger sett is established next door and it is no longer a place where ground-nesting birds can survive, we need to be able to alter the covenant and adapt it to the changed circumstances. If we have a commercial entity in place, which perhaps is only after gain at that stage—it may not be looking to do more or to continue in the business—the poor farmer is going to be in a very poor place indeed.
The holders of these covenants ought to be organisations which are likely to continue, and to value their reputation. for a very long time and which are likely to want to continue to enter into new covenants on the basis of their reputation. There are quite a number of big conservation-oriented organisations that that would apply to. It should not be a matter for commerce.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests, as stated in the register. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Lucas, who always speaks with great knowledge and experience on these subjects. I listened to the interesting speech of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, at Second Reading and again today, on conservation covenants. Unlike the noble Earl, I am not a lawyer, but I could understand his argument that, under English property law, it is not possible to bind a successor in title.
These provisions amount to a significant change in English property law, and I wonder whether they would work in practice. I understand that a number of estates are already operating similar schemes, but, rather than a covenant, they have a lease in place, with a restrictive user clause. In the majority of cases, a lease will usually work. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that, in the case of a covenant, as introduced by the Bill, you need a dominant and a servient tenement? In other words, the covenant restricts something on one piece of land in favour of another.
In the case of conservation covenants covering isolated plots of land, with no adjacent retained land, will there not be difficulties in enforcing such covenants? I would like to hear from the Minister what the Government’s view is on this question and the others raised by the noble Earl and other noble Lords. Certainly, I agree with the noble Earl that covenants of this nature should not be entered into lightly. His amendments generally make it clearer that to encumber land with such obligations is a weighty matter and that requiring such covenants to be signed as deeds probably makes a great deal of sense.
It is a great pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, back in his place after a long time. In his Amendment 276A, he seeks to extend this structure to common land, which is a very interesting idea, but it is complicated, as he said. I am not quite sure how this will work, and I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lady Bloomfield thinks about that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the House owes the noble Earl, Lord Devon, a great debt of gratitude for bringing to our attention some of the shortcomings of the existing proposals in the Bill, with regard to this whole new concept of property law, as it relates to the land. My initial reading of it was not clear, and I obviously received a brief from the NFU and others. I am grateful to the noble Earl; his amendments are eminently sensible, and I urge the Government to support them.
I will speak at greater length. I welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, to his place—it is good to see him back in person. However, I caution my noble friend the Minister most strongly against accepting this amendment for a number of reasons. I was closely involved with some issues relating to common land, particularly grazing rights on it in the part of North Yorkshire that I represented between 2010 and 2015. The role of graziers there is very important. They are granted rights, again, in perpetuity and have existed for many generations.
There are sometimes tensions with others in the hierarchy of interests, we might say, on common land, particularly with those involved in grouse shooting. I happen to have been brought up very close to two of the best grouse-shooting moors in the country, in Teesdale in County Durham, and I believe that, for the most part, the overgrazing problems, where they exist, have been managed extremely well through voluntary arrangements via stewardship schemes.
The main issue that I have is a potential hidden agenda here that it is very important to put in the public domain, appealing to the best instincts of my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in this regard. However, we need to see a balance in the countryside, and, among the hierarchy of interests, I place on record my particular concern about the plight of the small family farm. I would place that at the very top of the hierarchy, with grouse shooting and other interests perhaps towards the middle—or, in my case, the lower end. It has become of far greater economic importance than it had 20, 30 or 40 years ago. I pay particular tribute to the work of the NFU and the Tenant Farmers Association in regard to the rights of graziers to graze in perpetuity on common land. I was struck today by, and pay tribute to, the work of the Prince of Wales in this regard. He said today, on the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme, that we lose them at our peril, and I echo that.
I hope that my noble friend Lady Bloomfield will confirm that there is a role for graziers going forward and that their rights will be protected in perpetuity and will not be at the expense of other, perhaps larger, farming—or, dare I say, shooting—interests in this regard. We should have respect for existing property rights, as defined in relation to land under the Law of Property Act 1925 and other legislation. We should recognise that these rights of commoners go back as far as the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Charter of the Forest of 1217.
I welcome the opportunity that my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington— I call him my noble friend because we served together on the EU Environment Sub-Committee—has given us in this regard, but I urge my noble friend to approach this cautiously, particularly as it would potentially shift the balance in the countryside, without even meaning to do so.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will be extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for tabling these important amendments. I confess that I have not given them the attention that I should have done, and it is clear that a lot of attention needs to be given to this part of the Bill between now and Report. The fact that we are on the eighth day does not mean that these amendments are any less important than the first amendment on day 1—they need careful scrutiny.
To my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I say that I am not a landowner, but I was a land agent, and the implications of what the noble Earl said in moving his amendment fill me with some trepidation. He made a perfectly plausible case—it was not extreme—about a situation where a farmer hurriedly enters into a conservation covenant to boost his income at a time of stress, when his basic farm payments system is collapsing and he needs the money. That is not an unlikely scenario in the future, but the consequences of what he does are terrifying for the future because they are in perpetuity and binding on his successors. This could go disastrously wrong for the Government. This is the way that we will improve biodiversity, but, should it get off to a bad start and should some notorious cases hit the press, that will stop any chance of this becoming the full-blown operation that it should.
I have a number of questions for my noble friend on the Front Bench. If this a covenant in perpetuity, a farmer may enter into one on what is at the moment an outlying field but then ceases to be so, given the proposed massive housing development in this country, with the local authority wishing to develop it or use it for amenity purposes, as part of the increased use of that area. As I understand it, it will not be able to do so—but, when it has built houses all around that field, there is absolutely no way that the covenant will be able to be maintained. Is there a way in which this could be changed so that there is more flexibility?
When the noble Earl was talking, I wondered about the case of landlords and tenants. I presume it will be the landlord who enters into the covenant, and with the agreement of the tenant, but that could have serious consequences for the future letting of that land and keeping it in a tenancy. If for any reason the covenant was unable to be fulfilled, no tenant farmer would wish to take on that bit of land again in the future.
It would also affect the price and balance of farmland, because if it goes wrong and the land becomes of little value, it will upset the whole biodiversity and nature balance in that area. If one is talking of a landscape issue—for instance, a valley in the south-west or north-west where the whole area is properly managed but there is a conservation covenant in the middle of it that goes wrong—that could be utterly detrimental. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reflect on this so that he is absolutely confident that the balance is right for the future.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak principally about Amendment 276A, which relates to common land and which I have discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. The reason for that is that there is a very large amount of common land in the bit of north-west England where I come from, currently known as the county of Cumbria. I should declare that I am president of the Uplands Alliance and I own on my own account a few common rights and a very small area of registered common. I am also a farmer in his late 60s looking into the future.
I begin by reassuring the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that one of the advantages of speaking remotely is that I can, and do, have a copy of Megarry & Wade to hand. I urge your Lordships to take seriously the points that he has raised, because he is talking not merely as somebody who understands the way land works in the real world but as a property lawyer. His indictment of the implications of what is currently in the Bill is significant. There are massive potential problems here, starting with the definition of “responsible body” and going through the saga of how disaster can strike. It is not merely a matter of disaster hitting the particular owners or successors in title of owners of bits of land; it is potentially a disaster for the countryside and the environment as well. For what it is worth, my advice to the Government would be to tear these proposals up, start again and, if necessary, bring them back in another place and we can vote on them again at a later time after a period of reflection. It is not the aspirations behind what is contained in the Bill which are flawed; it is the mechanisms that they put in place to try to bring them about.
As has already been said, common land is a very complicated legal and administrative matter, as the discussions on the most recent Bill to pass through your Lordships’ House, in 2005, show. In that Bill, a balance was struck between a range of interests which do not always see eye to eye. Common land is as legitimate a form of land tenure as the more usual form found across much of lowland England and Wales. While it was at one time more widespread than it is now, it is still an entirely appropriate basis for farming and land management in a number of upland and lowland, particularly wetland, areas of England and Wales. It is not a hangover from feudal England, although its ancestry lies there, nor is it an anachronism in the 21st century. The various rights which exist under it are in legal terms qualitatively no different from those that exist elsewhere in land law. Furthermore—and this is important—it is a cultural phenomenon which is part of the basis of the rationale for the Lake District National Park having been designated as a world heritage site.
I can see what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is trying to do, and I have no criticism of it. However, I feel that he has oversimplified some things in a number of ways. Issues relating to conservation and the environment are not the only part of the story; there are other aspects—for example, grazed habitats; cultural landscape, which I have already mentioned; traditional farming systems; rural communities and so on. Furthermore, one thing we can learn from the history of commons is that the interests of the owner of the soil and those of the owner of the common rights are not necessarily the same. Indeed, the interests of different owners of rights, which are not all the same, are in turn not necessarily the same. I must confess that I am not happy that the owner of the soil could gain a kind of advantage over all the other legitimate legal rights involved in it in the way that has been described, particularly in respect of the long-established rights of commons, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It seems to me that if someone involved in common land wants to buy up some other land or rights or soil, they should do so in the ordinary way in the open market.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, back to his place in this House. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I must admit that, due to the diligence of his attendance on-screen, I too had not been aware that he had not been present. I understand the arguments made by the noble Lord for his Amendment 276A and recognise that he has proposed it very much as a probing amendment, but it seems a complex concept to introduce at this stage and it would need quite a lot of consideration.
I want to concentrate mainly on the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I am neither farmer, landowner nor lawyer, but, like many others in this Committee, I found his arguments compelling. As he said, conservation covenant agreements offer a potentially exciting and positive development, but, as he also told us, there are significant complexities. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that they are just minor wrinkles to be smoothed out, because they seem pretty fundamental. Like the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I feel that introducing for-profit organisations into this area does not seem sensible, particularly at such an early stage in their development.
Likewise, the ability to bind successors in perpetuity is clearly very significant, as is the ability to seek exemplary damages on the basis of those agreements. Whatever one thinks, the idea that a landowner could find themselves bound in perpetuity to a commercial interest and subject to exemplary damages simply by the exchange of messages, as the noble Earl explained, just cannot be right. While I am instinctively suspicious of a proposal from a lawyer, even one as articulate as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, to provide more work for lawyers, nevertheless on this occasion I accept fully the argument that he makes. Any agreement of such enduring significance must surely first be explicitly recognised as a covenant agreement, not just something that seems to be one—and surely no one should enter into such agreements without professional advice, given their significance.
As the noble Earl said, covenant agreements offer an important new approach that could be extremely significant. However, given that they also trespass on very complex areas of law, they should be treated and proceeded with cautiously. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take very seriously the arguments put forward by the noble Earl and look at how the Government can address this important part of the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority. I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for tabling these amendments and introducing them with such clarity. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, he was very persuasive. On that subject, we welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, back to his seat—he made his own very persuasive and silver-tongued contribution. I listened very carefully to what he was saying, but I am afraid that, like other noble Lords, I was not totally persuaded. Perhaps it is just because we have not had enough time to consider what seemed, the more we talked about it, to be a more and more complex issue. Forgive me if I do not dwell on that, because I feel I am out of my comfort zone in understanding the implications for the use of common land. Perhaps we can return to that issue at some point when we have more time to debate it in detail.
I return to the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. We welcome the essential principle of the conservation covenants in the Bill, which the noble Earl said was a result of the Law Commission’s recommendations. As a number of noble Lords have said, there are real concerns as to how these covenants will be applied in practice. The noble Earl said that it was particularly important that smaller farmers understood the full implications of entering into these covenants and are protected from exploitation. He has given some examples of the perverse consequences of historic covenants in the past, and I suspect that they will become more common in future. Already we are hearing in the south downs about farmers being approached by public bodies that want agreements to provide a home for their carbon offset obligations. I have no doubt that those sorts of pressures are only going to increase.
As the noble Earl says, it is in danger of becoming a bit of a wild west situation. It is likely that biodiversity net gain will create a new swathe of developers, public and private, looking to do deals with farmers to offset the damage that they are doing to the environment elsewhere. Already we are hearing talk of environmental stacking, whereby farmers have multiple obligations to different bodies to deliver environmental benefits, with all the legal complexities that would ensue if that became commonplace. Incidentally, this once more underlines the case of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone that we need a land-use strategy so that growing food, carbon offsetting and enhancing biodiversity all develop into a coherent policy whole, and we know where the priorities lie.
Of course, these developments could be an advantage to farmers and the environment if they were managed properly, but these agreements need to be managed with care to ensure that farmers are not exploited by big corporate players and their lawyers. That is why the noble Earl, despite being a lawyer, is quite right to pursue these amendments. They would make it clear that the covenant was a formal legal document, signed as a deed, which one hopes would ensure that the farmer received appropriate legal advice.
The noble Earl is also right to probe, in Amendment 274, what organisations that are not public bodies or charities can be defined as responsible bodies for the purpose of this clause. We agree that there are real concerns about for-profit organisations entering this market, with the potential lack of responsibility and knowledge that many of these organisations will have. We need to be assured that all the organisations described as responsible bodies have expertise in conservation. Since many of these agreements will be for the long term, we need to be clear about what happens if a responsible body holding a covenant subsequently becomes insolvent or ceases to exist, or simply sells that covenant on. A number of noble Lords have probed the consequences that could occur from applying those covenants in perpetuity, and the impact that that could have on the individual.
It seems to me that we need answers to this, and the noble Earl’s amendments go a considerable way to addressing it. I also agree with the amendments laying greater duties on the Secretary of State to manage the covenants in those circumstances, particularly in the longer term. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, what is the point of having the stopgap of the Secretary of State if he is not required to do anything, as is the case under the current provisions?
In conclusion, I very much believe that the noble Earl has made a powerful case for these amendments. Alarm bells are ringing about the actions we need to take to get this right. I hope that the Minister has heard the concerns from around the Chamber. It would be helpful if, as a matter of urgency, she was able to meet the noble Earl—and I hope that we will be able to find a solution and a revised wording of the Bill.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of this part of the Bill. I also take this opportunity to thank the Law Commission, as this part of the Bill is based on its work and the draft Bill that it prepared. Its ongoing support as the Bill has moved through the various parliamentary stages has also proved invaluable.
Conservation covenants are an important and flexible tool for the environment’s conservation and improvement—and I know that there is some frustration that this was not drafted as a specific Bill, but it is right that we legislate for them now rather than waiting. They complement other measures in the Bill, such as biodiversity net gain. Conservation covenants are private agreements entered into voluntarily to deliver long-term conservation outcomes for the natural and heritage features of the land—and I welcome the broad support of noble Lords from around the House, particularly that of the Green Party. Importantly, the legislation allows for covenants to bind successor landowners, which ensures that they can deliver lasting conservation for future generations; the legislation also allows for them to be modified or discharged to cater for changing circumstances.
Amendments 266, 267 and 268, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, seek to ensure greater formality in the process for creating these covenants. Before I get into the detail, I emphasise again that these agreements are voluntary, and a covenant needs to be exercised as a deed to be entered as a land charge, which I hope goes some way to reassuring noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Conservation covenants cannot be imposed—rather, the parties will need to work together to set them up in line with the requirements set out in the Bill. As these are legally binding agreements, there needs to be a degree of formality, and the Bill’s provisions ensure that there is.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am comforted, to some extent, by what my noble friend has said, but I very much hope that I might be included in the meeting that she proposes between officials and the noble Earl.
It is extremely important to get the practical application of this system right. In particular, I remain extremely cautious about broadening the ambit of responsible bodies to include organisations which are fundamentally commercial. What is needed here are bodies that are fundamentally ecological—that have an established long-term interest in getting the ecology of an area right. National parks obviously come within that—that is not a problem, as far as I can see—but something with a more commercial bent, however ecologically expert it is, seems a very questionable road to go down and likely to result in a great deal of heartache.
When it comes to my own meeting with officials, I will certainly be interested in the way in which perpetuity is so comfortable to them here but is such a problem when it comes to biodiversity gain. I cannot see the logic that goes through here. Biodiversity gain is, by and large, negotiated with people who are well informed, well set up and, in particular, stand to make a large amount of money from a transaction where the costs of the biodiversity gain are not going to be substantial. Here, we are dealing with people who are in a very different relationship with the responsible body.
Perpetuity seems to me to be right, because we are trying to do something for the very long term—but it has to be perpetuity with flexibility. To have perpetuity without flexibility, as we have here, or flexibility without perpetuity, as we have with biodiversity gain, seems the wrong road to go down. I very much hope that we will make some progress on that between now and Report.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I believe that the Government and my noble friend are in agreement on the criteria for selecting a responsible body, whose main purpose or function must relate to conservation. I would be delighted to include him in a future meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and officials and perhaps we could address some other concerns at that meeting.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated and voiced, in general, considerable support for the amendments that I have proposed. It is particularly pleasing to hear support from the Green Party—despite the aristocratic proposer of these amendments—and from other Benches; it is much appreciated. I am pleased to hear that the Government take these amendments seriously and are willing to meet me; I look forward to that meeting.
A number of points were raised. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised the issue regarding landlords and tenants. As I read the legislation, tenants will be able to enter into conservation covenants so long as they have at least seven years left on their tenancy. Of course, what happens on reversion of the tenancy once they have converted a farming field into a bog is yet another complexity that I did not have time to get to in my hypotheticals.
I also appreciate the support from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but, contrary to him, I think there is a role for for-profit companies within this marketplace. It is an exciting opportunity for environmental land management to bring in private finance but, if we are to do that, we absolutely must control and manage it, which is what these amendments are designed to do.
I thank the noble Baroness for the Government’s reply; she suggested that covenants can be easily modified or discharged in sites in application to the lands tribunal. In response to the Law Commission’s inquiry, the Bar Council pointed out that even the most modest application to the lands tribunal costs at least £50,000, and I am not sure that a small farmer would be willing to spend that to modify a covenant. She says that, to be registered as land charges, they must be executed by deed. I do not see that in the legislation and, as I understand it, they have effect as land charges even if they are not registered, so they still have this quasi-governmental function. As I understand it, they also continue to permit the responsible body to enforce exemplary damages, whether they are registered or not. Those are very significant impacts.
I am afraid that the noble Baroness may have misunderstood my Amendment 274, because it did change. The amendment is to the provision that applies to the for-profit, non-charitable, non-local authority entities. My aim is to ensure that any entities designated thereunder have conservation as their core function because, at present, the legislation does not permit for that. It is absolutely important that, if we are to have private enterprises involved, they need to be conservation enterprises; they cannot be banks that are just seeking to make a profit in developing an ecosystems services arm.
Finally, as to Amendment 276, while it is right that conservation covenants should be preserved, the reason why large payments will be made under them is because the landowner—the farmer—has to spend a lot of money maintaining the land in that way. If no payments can be made by the Secretary of State when that person takes responsibility for the covenant, there will be income for the land to be maintained in the way that it is meant to be. If payments are not made, the conservation purposes will necessarily fall away or the farmer will once more go bankrupt. There are a huge number of issues to be dealt with here. I do not think it is enough that this can just be packed in at the back end of Committee; we have a lot more work to do and I look forward to meeting the Minister and the Bill team. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Amendments of Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006
(1) Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (general restrictions on legislative competence of Senedd Cymru) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 9(8)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to reserved authorities)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (v);(b) after paragraph (vi) insert “; or—(vii) the Environment Act 2021.”(3) In paragraph 11(6)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to Ministers of the Crown)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (v);(b) after paragraph (vi) insert “; or—(vii) the Environment Act 2021.”Member’s explanatory statement
Several provisions of the Bill give both the Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State functions relating to Welsh devolved matters. The amendments made by this new Clause enable Senedd Cymru to remove the Secretary of State’s functions relating to Welsh devolved matters without the Secretary of State’s consent.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 280. Anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 280
“Research into impact of offshore windfarms
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that before planning permission is granted, research must be undertaken by companies seeking to construct and operate offshore windfarms into the cumulative impact on—(a) the environment, (b) marine life, and(c) sea mammals,of the construction and operation phase of such windfarms.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to debate Amendment 280 standing in my name. I am delighted to have to the support of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I also wish to speak briefly on Amendment 285 in this group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I would like to think that my noble friend the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm that there is currently a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing both on land and at sea in England which, in that case, would be extremely welcome. It is good, however, to debate the issue in the context of Amendment 285. I am mindful of how any proposal for fracking, particularly on land, causes great consternation among local people, as we saw in North Yorkshire.
To return to Amendment 280, may I ask the Minister for what reason there is currently no requirement for an undertaking to perform any form of research before planning permission is sought or granted in connection with offshore wind farms? My noble friend will be aware of what witnesses who appeared before the EU Environment Sub-Committee—so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, until it wound up earlier this year—told us about the increasing urbanisation of the sea by the introduction, increasingly, of turbines, and the sea-change, if noble Lords will pardon the phrase, and the stepping-up of wind farms that we are currently seeing. One witness in particular referred to how this changes the ecology and the whole ecosystem, in particular by introducing fixed structures, cables, armoury, turbines and so on. What assessment has been made of the cumulative impacts, not just at the construction phase but more especially at the operational phase? I know that the Minister is aware that I am concerned about the impact at the operation phase of wind farms on porpoises, dolphins and minke whales.
We should also be aware that offshore wind is a very new sector. Because it has expanded so incrementally and so quickly, having been around for only 10 years, we have never actually paused to consider what the repercussions will be on the seabed, marine life and mammals of extensive construction over such a short period of time. I understand that the focus to date has been largely on what the disbenefits might be to marine life of the construction phase, but my understanding is that no research has been undertaken to consider what the impact will be of the operation phase. I know that the Danes have done some work on this; at one stage, they stopped building wind farms on land because the farmers complained about the constant hum and the impact they were having on their animals.
I am equally aware that the Minister is aware—he has referred to this previously—of the tensions between offshore wind farms and other uses of the sea, in particular the North Sea, such as, for example, fishing and shipping. I am not yet convinced that the Government have set out how these tensions will be resolved. I also understand that, in relation to the North Sea, there is currently no government forum to facilitate international co-operation and, for example, the sharing of knowledge or, perhaps, the ability to undertake joint research in this regard. As the hosts of COP, which I am sure we are all immensely proud of, will the Government use that as an opportunity to show leadership and set out how the UK will deliver their offshore wind ambition in a sustainable way, and with international partners as well?
I will end with a couple of questions; perhaps we can carry on the discussion, now that we are planning to meet, which I warmly welcome. I felt very much left out, so my heart is severely warmed by this. How will the Government resolve the tension between competing interests such as wind farms, fishing and shipping, particularly in the context of the North Sea but also in other areas where this takes place? Will they take the opportunity to commission research on the potential cumulative impacts before further construction, or planning permission is given for the siting, of wind farms? Will the Minister commit to a more strategic and precautionary approach and set out exactly how marine life and mammals operating within the North Sea will be protected going forward?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend opposite, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I sort of see the point in her amendment; I had better not say that I support it, because I would probably get rude emails from the Green Party saying it has not been party policy, but obviously I would be happy to discuss it. On the issue of not being invited to meet the Minister, the Greens still have not been invited to meet him, and I cannot decide whether that is because we completely trust the Minister to understand everything that we are saying; I cannot think of any other option. We obviously trust the Minister completely to take our point of view back to Defra.
My amendment is on something that I care about very deeply, namely fracking. I have tabled it with a view to banning it once and for all. In doing so, I want to celebrate all the hard work of campaigners and activists across the country who delivered massive opposition against this dirty and dangerous polluting industry, often in the face of poor policy decisions by the Government and the fracking industry’s might-is-right attempts to quash them. In particular, I applaud the Preston New Road campaign in Lancashire. It was a thousand days of protest by the anti-fracking Nanas, a bunch of mainly older women led by Tina Rothery. They fought so hard in the face of well-financed and rather nasty, threatening behaviour by Cuadrilla.
In the 2019 general election, it was announced that we had won on this particular issue. The Conservatives, along with every other political party in Parliament, declared themselves to be against fracking. However, we in the UK are still supporting fracking in Argentina, which means we are offshoring the horrid stuff, so we do not have to count all the carbon emissions and so on, and Namibia is being exploited by a Canadian company. Ireland called for an international ban this year, and calls are now growing for an Irish-led global ban on fracking. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether that is something that the Government might support.
Here in the UK, there are still legal loopholes that could allow fracking to be forced on communities. I am most worried that, even if the Secretary of State did reject planning permission for fracking, this could be overturned in a judicial review. The Government may have changed their policy to be against fracking but, if this conflicts with the law in a judicial review, their policy will be ruled unlawful. For this reason, we must change the law to reflect what is now common agreement: that fracking is banned in the UK. I hope that the Minister will agree.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and her strong advocacy, which I very much respect. I am going to speak to Amendment 280, to which I was very pleased to put my name, alongside that of its proponent, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As the noble Baroness said, this is an area that the EU Environment Sub-Committee looked at. When we started looking into the areas of research, planning and the various impacts of wind farms, we found far more questions than answers. I look forward to the Minister coming back in this area.
I clearly welcome the renewable energy programme that we have. Obviously, offshore wind—whether it be floating or on the seabed—is going to be a very major part of that. However, it is important to make sure that that programme has the least negative impact on the environment, whether it be all the marine areas that the noble Baroness talked about, or birdlife—seabirds and migratory birds as well. There is not enough research in this area; there ought to be research for the future shared among all the countries around both the North Sea and the Celtic Sea, so that we can make sure that we locate turbines in the most favourable way to protect—and, in some areas, to encourage—environmental life at marine level. As the noble Baroness said, there might be positives in this area as well.
I want to ask the Minister about the fora that we deal with now on energy in the North Sea. We have been excluded—I think unreasonably—from one of the main European ones, which was not an EU institution, and included us in the past. However, I understand that there is a new forum that we might be involved in where these discussions are taking place. This is important because, clearly, the locations of wind farms in the North Sea and, in future, the Celtic Sea should be co-ordinated, if for no other reason than to make sure that as much infrastructure as possible is shared. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how we will ensure, as we start to develop the Celtic Sea as well, that we do not have multiple landing points and multiple cables put down, as has happened in the North Sea. We should have some co-ordination there to minimise damage.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am here to speak against Amendment 285. It seems to me that making fracking effectively illegal is an extreme reaction. That seems short-sighted. It closes down any possibility of looking at the issue again or objectively, and potentially feeds into an atmosphere in which we cannot have a sensible debate on energy policy because we start criminalising innovations every time they come along. We have heard that the Government have a moratorium on fracking. I feel that is overcautious and potentially unhelpful but, regardless of that, to make it illegal feels completely over the top.
I understand that fracking is controversial as a method of drawing shale gas from the ground. Certainly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, explained, environmental activists have been hyperactive in ensuring that there is a popular image of fracking as dangerous and dirty, but I do not know that that should pass for science or evidence. I am not for or against fracking, but I am against moralising on the issue and, right from the start, I have been shocked by the venomous demonisation of what, after all, is just an energy source. There has been a lot of misinformation and scare stories around the issue.
I call, rather, for a calm discussion about the kind of tremors caused—they would be caused by any mineral extraction, whether quarry blasting or any major civil engineering project. I worry about a tendency to portray the worst-case scenario, with scary stories of earthquakes, water contamination and poisoned water tables. I feel that is a distinctly evidence-free approach and I do not feel the Bill should be associated with something quite so ideological in that way. I am calling for a more neutral and nuanced cost-benefit analysis approach.
I remember when the former Labour MP and fracking tsar, Natascha Engel, said that government policy was being driven by environmental lobbying rather than science, evidence and a desire to see the UK industry flourish. Indeed, I was shocked by how many rejoiced at what Ms Engel described as a “perfectly viable” industry being wasted, regardless of that industry’s massive potential for jobs and local prosperity in places such as the north-west, North Yorkshire and north Derbyshire. It promised to bring energy prices down. If it did not work out, fine, but to celebrate that as a big gain seemed to me inappropriate.
I also worry about the billions being spent on importing gas, which could be better spent. I have plenty of ideas, particularly in health and social care and in rebuilding post-Covid society. I am not keen on dependence on Russian gas, but even beyond the question of energy security, it seems to me that, even within the terms set by net zero—even though that is not a target I am particularly obsessive about, as others are—shale gas production could have had few carbon emissions, far fewer than hydrocarbons. It always surprises me, when we talk about reaching carbon emission targets, that we would rule out getting gas out of the ground in the UK, rather than importing it. It feels, with nuclear power as well, that every time a new energy solution is proposed that is not wind or solar, we get a kind of moral panic led by activism.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about the problem of finding any energy source that will not disrupt the environment and nature. I was involved in an argument some years ago after Lancashire County Council rejected an application for exploratory drilling—not in relation to the safety of fracking per se, but based on the negative visual impact, increased traffic on rural roads and that kind of environmental disruption. Would not such concerns condemn industrialisation in general? How can there be economic development without traffic, or some changes to the skyline or, indeed, to the environment? I think we need that.
My priorities are to generate wealth—not personally; I have never been able to do that—to see that society is able to generate wealth and, in the process, make people’s lives more comfortable and open opportunities for humanity. We need industrialisation in general, and more energy production in particular, and that will involve infrastructural environmental disruption. Shale gas might not be the energy we need, but we should note that the wider ideological rejection of economic growth and progress sometimes afflicts this discussion and we should avoid it. We definitely do not need an amendment to the Bill that would make fracking, or any energy source, illegal. I would even urge the Government to look again at the moratorium.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 280 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. This is a very interesting area and it is important that we continue to carefully research the impact of individual wind farms, as well as—perhaps more importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned—their cumulative effect on many species, from benthic invertebrates through sand eels and fish to birds and the larger sea mammals. I shall start by highlighting the approach taken on this subject by the National Audubon Society, the equivalent of the RSPB in the USA. It says, and I gather that many scientists here agree, that climate change is the biggest enemy of our avian population. As wind farms are one of the best weapons in our arsenal to fight climate change, we must be careful about putting too many barriers in the way of their development, albeit with a clear understanding of their effects and what mitigation could be put in place.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is right that research on the effect of offshore wind farms on marine mammals and cetaceans is still, shall we say, in its infancy. However, the research on wind farms and their effects on birds is reasonably well advanced, so I shall focus on that. The Scottish Government, through their all-encompassing research programme on marine energy, ScotMER, have taken a very good strategic approach to this issue, working with research institutions, notably the UK’s CEH, which I happen to chair, alongside some important private-sector players; the Swedish company Vattenfall and the Danish company Ørsted being two good examples.
On the question of where offshore windfarms should be situated, we are pretty well aware of their effects during the seabird breeding season. By putting GPS tags on birds during the breeding season, we now know precisely where wind farms should not go, which is a very good start. The winter season is more difficult, however. GPS tags are not yet light enough or durable enough to provide reliable long-term information during this highly sensitive period. I call it a sensitive period because most seabird mortality happens during winter, and winter deaths are the critical factor in the survival of their colonies—more so, it seems, than their breeding success.
The main problem encountered during winter by our seabirds is the lack of food. The main food they eat are sand eels, which, as their name indicates, live in the underwater sands of the North Sea, let us say, where most wind farms are. Maybe the abundance of sand eels is affected by the sands themselves being disturbed by the building of wind farms and, more importantly perhaps, by the submersion of miles and miles of cable. But we do not yet have the data on that.
However, I should point out at this stage that, where you have wind farms, you will probably not get fishing boats, because of the likelihood of drift and getting the nets entangled in turbine towers. In the long term—we do not yet know—by building wind farms, we might well be creating the equivalent of what should be happening in our marine protected areas in terms of no-go fishing areas, where many species, including sand eels, could be given a real chance to flourish. Wind farms could be the best thing for both our abundance of fish and our birds. Who knows?
Coming back to the existence of offshore wind farms and their effect on birds, it is notable that the worst effects are on high-flying birds such as gannets and kittiwakes, whereas low-flying birds such as razorbills, guillemots and shearwaters tend not to be too troubled by them. Kittiwakes seem to be the worst affected species, and it is good that Ørsted, for instance, is building artificial kittiwake nesting sites at the Hornsea Three development off the Yorkshire coast by way of mitigation.
Returning to the amendment, I am not sure that its emphasis is right. Private companies already have to carry out basic environmental monitoring exercises both before and after their developments. As I have said, some of them go very much further, with Vattenfall actually paying for a PhD student to assist in the ScotMER research project I mentioned just now.
In many ways, having private companies judge the environmental viability of their own project is not as good as getting them to contribute to more strategic research into the overall cumulative effects of offshore wind farms and the best ways of mitigating their effects. The current view is that having lots of small turbines placed close to each other is more damaging than having modern large turbines placed a kilometre or so apart, but we do not yet really know. Is it best to leave 2-kilometre-wide corridors through wind farms or does this only confuse the situation? Further research has found that if you paint one blade of each turbine all black, the birds seem to keep away—but again, more data is needed on this.
Coming back to the kittiwake issue, and on the subject of strategic planning, there is a big question as to whether we should be thinking of the kittiwake population as a local problem or, as they do in the United States, thinking of the kittiwake population as a whole. In other words, if a colony on the Yorkshire coast is threatened, maybe it would be better to encourage more kittiwake growth in Wales or Cornwall, and not in Yorkshire. We might have more overall success that way. Again, more research is going on in those fields. If overwintering is the main problem, as I said, we should definitely combine our research strategies, not only with all the UK nations involved but also, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, with other countries such as Iceland, Norway, Denmark, et cetera.
In conclusion, the problem is a very good one to raise in the context of this Bill. It is an important issue and I thank the noble Baroness for raising it, but I am not sure that the amendment as it stands quite puts its finger on the right solution.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 280 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 285 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. It is great to see him in person, although we also appreciate seeing him virtually and hearing his expertise.
Amendment 280 would allow the Secretary of State to gain a stronger understanding of the impact of offshore wind farms on the environment, marine life and sea mammals. The UK is a global leader in offshore wind—Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said that we are the Saudi Arabia of wind power—but, with the energy source powering millions of homes across the country, it is also an area that the Government have identified for growth, with the world’s largest wind farm under construction off the north-east coast. To allow such expansion, Ministers have been uncharacteristically generous in extending the work visa waiver scheme for relevant workers.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has said, there has not been enough research in this area; the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that we must look at the most favourable way to ensure that the decisions are right. The noble Baroness looked in particular at the impact of wind farms not just operationally but from a construction point of view on the ecosystem, looking at the fixed structures and turbines themselves.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Although energy production is not directly covered by the scope of the Bill, its impact on the environment clearly is hugely important. The urgent need to decarbonise our economy means that we need to greatly increase our deployment of renewable energy projects in the coming years.
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for Amendment 280. She is right that the development of offshore wind farms needs to be achieved in a way that protects fragile marine environments and, as she said, the many mammals and other forms of marine life that live there. It is all too common when pursuing a solution to one problem to simply brush aside the creation of other problems in the excitement. I pay tribute to her for raising these important issues, as she has done on many occasions in this House. I reassure her that applications for development consent for offshore wind farms made under the Planning Act 2008 are required to undertake an environmental assessment that includes consideration of the impact of development on marine life and sea mammals. This process can be used to secure mitigation to minimise any adverse effects of development.
I can confirm to my noble friend that Schedule 4 to the 2017 infrastructure planning regulations sets out the environmental information that developers have to provide in the environmental statements that accompany applications. This includes information on the cumulative impact. However, I am very happy to have that discussion with her when we meet shortly.
Both the examining authority and the Secretary of State are able to request further information during the application process if they consider that the information supplied by the applicant is insufficient. The information provided allows the Secretary of State to decide what level of mitigation or compensation should be required if there are adverse impacts on the marine environment. The Secretary of State must take into account both the benefits and the impacts of the project and any proposed mitigation or compensation in deciding whether to grant or refuse development consent.
More widely, the Secretary of State may set out in the relevant national policy statement any particular information applicants need to provide as part of their application for development consent for specific technologies. As my noble friend knows, the Government are in the process of updating the national policy statements for energy, and intend to publish the revised plans by the end of this year. There will be a full public consultation, as well as an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, before the updated statements are designated.
Supported by an investment from the Treasury’s shared outcomes fund, Defra is also leading work to improve the understanding of environmental impacts from construction, as well as looking at how we can reduce the impacts of underwater noise. We are also developing a mechanism for introducing net gain through offshore wind deployment and improving the accessibility and provision of data to improve consenting and monitoring. Defra is working very closely with BEIS, environmental NGOs and the offshore wind sector to make sure that any such mitigation or compensation is both effective and deliverable. The Government are also considering how future developments can be planned and delivered in such a way that any adverse environmental impact is significantly reduced.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh, the offshore transmission networks review, which is led by BEIS and Ofgem, is currently working to increase co-ordination of offshore transmission to reduce, we hope, the overall amount of new offshore investment that is going to be needed to achieve targets. I hope this reassures my noble friend and that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
I move on to Amendment 285, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. It is not possible to have too many meetings with the noble Baroness, and so I would be delighted to have more. The Government have always been clear that the development of domestic energy sources, including shale gas, must be safe, both for communities and for the environment. The Minister, Rebecca Pow, offered numerous assurances on this in the other place, and I am very happy to repeat them now.
In November 2019, the Government set out their position in a Written Statement to the House, in which they stated:
“The Government will take a presumption against issuing any further hydraulic fracturing consent.”
As the noble Baroness has explained, the experience of fracking so far has been costly. There are undoubtedly numerous questions about safety and environmental impacts. In respect of fracking and shale gas development, the Government have taken a science-led approach to exploring the potential of the industry, underpinned by strong environmental and safety standards. Following the events during fracking operations in 2019, which the noble Baroness referenced, the Government subsequently introduced the moratorium.
I add that the latest joint annual Statutory Security of Supply Report from BEIS and Ofgem, published on 18 December last year, does not use hydraulically fractured shale gas in any of the security of supply assessments. The Government have no plans to review the moratorium on fracking, nor will we support shale gas exploration unless and until the science demonstrates categorically that it can be done safely for both people and the environment.
I end by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I hope I have been able to reassure your Lordships’ sufficiently, so that my noble friend feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lord who have spoken, and give special thanks to the Minister for his full reply. I am delighted to hear of all the work that is currently ongoing. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his support and confirmation of the issues that we heard during the evidence session in the sub-committee on the environment.
I listened very carefully to all the research that my noble friend—if I may call him so—Lord Cameron of Dillington set out on birds. It showed how much need there is for marine life and mammals to be considered. He mentioned Ørsted doing the research into birds. I do not know why, if it is good for private companies to look into birds, it is not good for them also to do research into mammals. I hope that is something that the Government will explore.
I hope also that my noble friend will be able to tell us what the procedure will be for reducing tensions between fishing, shipping and wind farms. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned, if we go down the path of floating structures, I imagine that this could be more of a problem to fishing and shipping as well. I obviously pay tribute to the energy that we are harvesting from the seas, but I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the mitigation measures that the Government have put in place.
I have one final word on fracking, in connection with Amendment 285. There are absolutely no economic grounds for fracking; I think that has been proven in this country and elsewhere. It causes distress to local communities, and there are other means of energy. Look at Denmark as an example. It had a torrid time during the 1973 energy crisis, because it had no energy reserves of any note. It has made a comeback, and now it is in a very strong position, because of renewables. There are other forms of energy.
I think the Government’s position is quite sound, although I am not saying that I would not like to see a permanent ban on fracking—I am well signed up to that. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We come now to the group beginning with Amendment 286. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 286
“Strategy for new economic goals to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing
(1) Her Majesty’s Government must prepare a strategy for the adoption of new economic goals to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing.(2) “Environmental protection” in subsection (1) means the protection of humans and the natural environment from the impacts of human activity as defined in section 44.(3) The new economic goals must address—(a) the environmental targets in this Act,(b) the Climate Change Act 2008,(c) the United Kingdom’s commitments under international environmental agreements, laws and treaties,(d) the wellbeing of future generations,(e) the overseas environmental impacts of UK consumption and economic activity, and(f) the contribution of the UK’s consumption and production to the state of the global environment, in relation to nine planetary boundaries—(i) stratospheric ozone depletion,(ii) loss of biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss and extinctions),(iii) chemical pollution and the release of novel entities,(iv) climate change,(v) ocean acidification,(vi) freshwater consumption and the global hydrological cycle,(vii) land system change, (viii) nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the biosphere and oceans, and(ix) atmospheric aerosol loading.(4) The strategy must—(a) set out how the new economic goals will replace growth in gross domestic product as the principal measure of national economic progress,(b) set out a vision for how the economy can be designed to serve the wellbeing of humans and protect the natural environment,(c) include a set of indicators for each new economic goal, and(d) set out plans for the application of new economic goals and indicators to central and local government decision-making processes including but not limited to Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation produced by HM Treasury (the Green Book).(5) In drawing up the strategy, Her Majesty’s Government must obtain, publish and take into account the advice of—(a) experts in the field of ecological economics,(b) a nationally representative citizens assembly,(c) trades unions,(d) businesses,(e) statutory agencies,(f) representatives of local and regional government, and(g) any persons the Secretary of State considers to be independent and to have relevant expertise.(6) The strategy must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the passing of this Act.(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report on progress towards meeting the new economic goals and their efficacy in delivering environmental protection and societal wellbeing.(8) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than one month after the report has been laid before Parliament, move a motion in the House of Commons in relation to that report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Government to prepare a strategy for the adoption of new economic goals that are designed to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing and to report annually on these goals.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I will be speaking to Amendment 286 in my name in this two-amendment group. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is following me, will speak to Amendment 288. You can take it as read that I am entirely behind that amendment as well.
I make no apologies for referring again to the New Zealand living standards framework which guides every decision of that nation’s Treasury. That is truly world-leading, and this amendment seeks to take us a long way towards catching up. The amendment might be taken as a continuation of my efforts to help the Minister convince the Treasury that it is operating on flawed assumptions. The Treasury currently acts as though it is there in the interests of that entirely artificial, thoroughly discriminatory and deeply flawed construct, the economy, rather than operating for the well-being and security of people and planet. This amendment would provide a legal framework for change. It is essentially the same amendment that was tabled in the other place by Green MP Caroline Lucas, where it attracted cross-party backing.
This morning I was at an international event talking about how the people are leading on climate and biodiversity crises, with businesses and Governments trailing behind. Our long slog on the Environment Bill—a reflection, as my noble friend said in our last session, of the way the Government have failed to provide the necessary steel in its contents fit for this desperately late year of 2021—means its timing is fortuitous, for today a report was released by the Institute for Public Policy Research, drawing on the views of citizen panels in the South Wales valleys, Essex, Aberdeenshire, Tees Valley and County Durham. All of them offered their views on how the country should reach net zero by 2050 via a series of panels held over 18 months.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I would like to thank the Chief Whip for giving us our very own Green group grouping; I think that is very forward-thinking of him. It is probably about time that we had our own space on the Order Paper as well and, of course, Green group debates in the new Session. I really feel we are moving on here.
My amendment touches on the same philosophical question as my noble friend’s. Mine is predominantly about clean air, because this is getting very urgent, but it also mentions net-zero emissions. The question is: what is government for and how should it act? If our 20th-century nation state is to develop into a 21st-century sustainable society, the purpose of government should be to preserve and enhance human health, life and the environment, both for current and future generations. Nations and states are less important than clean air, clean water and a liveable planet.
We need public authorities to have legal duties and the funding to improve the health of people and the environment—particularly air quality, as that impacts on so many other parts of society, including placing a burden on the NHS now and reaching into the far future because of the damage being done to the lungs of children. Whether you are a parish councillor, a Secretary of State, a governor or the Secretary-General of the UN, people at every level of government and governance need to be racing to clean up our planet, to cut our air pollution and to cut back to net zero as soon as possible. I would argue that a liveable planet is actually a human right, and every single person on this earth, now and in perpetuity, deserves it.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support these amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones, and will refer to three aspects.
The first is how the pursuit of new economic goals, as here indicated, can be consistent with or complementary to the pursuit of previous and different economic goals.
The second is the need for greater clarity about what they actually are, not least as communicated between government and local authorities.
Thirdly, promoting the joint interest of humans and the natural environment together is not a vague aspiration but instead a concrete aim which deserves to be represented by very specific plans and particular called-for action dates—such as, in the second amendment, net-zero emissions by 2030, an achievement which, of course, benefits not just the environment but, in the context of the first amendment, humans and the environment together.
In the latter terms, these useful and coherent amendments thus assist the Bill’s purposes, including initiatives for producing our own food, fuel and housing, and with restoring biodiversity and capturing carbon, while at the same time avoiding negative international impacts, whether in general or from our own exports to others overseas.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very pleased to see the relationship with the economy being brought to the fore here for two reasons: one is its inherent importance; the second is the query lurking around somewhere about whether the Bill should have anything to do with the economy. Before Glasgow, that query will be blown out of the water. We cannot just go on saying that we are doing things about greenhouse gases, and about what we might call the coefficient between the growth of greenhouse gases relative to the growth of GDP, and thinking everything in the garden is lovely. It is not; the opposite, I am afraid, is true. We have until Glasgow to make sure we are not blown out of the water when it comes to our credentials.
I have raised both in Grand Committee and here, in different contexts, how we are going to make sure that we have a relevant metric—that is what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, called it—to measure the development of greenhouse gases, the growth of the economy and, above all, the desired change in the coefficient so that greenhouse gases are going downwards, relative to the growth of the economy, rather than upwards.
Whitehall government is falling between some stools here, and I would like the Minister to take on board the fact that we need to get our act together with some statistical compatibility between the things we think we are talking about. There is no point repeating mantras such as “net zero” and looking at many decades if we cannot even get our quarterly data to make sense. We need to have quarterly data that puts together the recent change in the gross national product on the one hand and the greenhouse gas data on the other. The work done by the Committee on Climate Change leaves open to discussion an alarming divergence, in the wrong direction, of these two metrics.
I am not coming from the same place, politically, as Members from the Green Party. However, some clarity about how our economy, in the short to medium term, should be developing in terms of greenhouse gases, and how this can be made into a more credible picture before Glasgow, is—for the Labour Party and others taking a serious interest in this matter, I am sure—a hugely important requirement. We hear very little about it, and it is partly because of the environment being in a different silo in Whitehall from the economic silos in the department of business and the Treasury. We have some experience of those sorts of arguments; I recognise one when I see one.
I will table an amendment on Report on precisely these questions. This is a good moment, I hope, to flag up the importance of getting something into the Bill which will be an opportunity to make some progress before Glasgow, so that we do not look like the emperor with no clothes.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I support the green grouping, as it has been classed; as we are in coalition with a Green group in my local borough of Waverley, I am keen to do some cross-party supporting of this. It goes slightly broader than the Bill, but there is nothing wrong with that to me. I would not wish to suggest what was in the minds of the two noble Baronesses, but I have a strong sense of the frustration that we are facing this ecological crisis and getting to the end of the Bill, but are we using every single tool in the toolbox to make sure that we address this issue? I commend the ambition, and I am grateful to them for bringing this forward.
The noble Baronesses are right that the first amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, focuses on economics. As we all know, it is always a case of “follow the money,” and it is right that we should put on more pressure to ensure that the Treasury embeds the climate and environmental goals into our future national accounting structures. It would be fantastic if we were standing here today and by now had seen the net-zero strategy and had an idea of the Government’s thinking on this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling these amendments and allowing us to have this broader and important debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about reprogramming the economy fundamentally, and she set out a compelling case for linking our economic goals with biodiversity, health and well-being goals, which we know are all needed to protect our planet for the longer term.
This clearly needs a rethink at the highest level but so far it seems that the Treasury, which commissioned the Dasgupta report, has had the least to say about its conclusions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, it is not just the Dasgupta review; a wealth of accumulated expertise is pointing in the same direction and saying that we need new and different economic goals. I thought she made that case very well. Sadly, change on that scale will come only if there is leadership from the top and all Governments commit to play their part. As she illustrated, this is simply not happening at the moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about rights and duties, and I agree with that concept, but if we are to adopt that approach, I would be a bit bolder than the public sector duty to ensure everyone can breathe clean air—important though that is. I would include, for example, the right to access parks and green spaces within walking distance; the right to swim in unpolluted rivers; the right to plant trees and vegetables on unused public-sector land; the right to a service that recycles all unusable waste, underpinned by a vibrant circular economy; the right of every child to access to fresh fruit and vegetables every day; the right to social prescribing in the health service and to locally sourced food in hospitals and care homes; the right for every child to spend a night under the stars, and for nature to be back on the curriculum. I could go on.
The point is that if we are going to take forward all the discussions we have had over the past few weeks, let us think big about the kind of country we want to live in, so that the Bill becomes just the first step on a much bigger journey.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I welcome Amendment 286 and the thoughtful and interesting speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The challenge is that GDP has been used by Governments pretty much everywhere as a proxy for well-being ever since it was developed half a century ago, but GDP was never designed to be an all-encompassing measure of welfare. In basic terms, it simply measures economic activity, indiscriminately—it cannot distinguish between growth that is or is not sustainable, or even good. GDP measures what we produce, but it ignores the cost of what we destroy to make it. It can add, but it cannot subtract.
It is possible to imagine that you could empty the oceans of all fish, chop down every last tree, fill our rivers with poison, pollute every last breath of air that we take, and all the time, GDP could still be rising and the economy still be growing. Ironically, the man who helped develop the concept of GDP in the first place, Nobel Prize economist Simon Kuznets, never anticipated its use as a comprehensive measure of progress. In 1934, he wrote:
“The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income.”
Robert Kennedy said something similar: that GDP
“does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”
The problem is that numerous organisations have over the years attempted to develop alternative indicators. I worked for one myself—it feels like many decades ago. The results of their work have often been overly complicated metrics that Governments would struggle to use in a practical way, but we need to find additional ways to measure the health of our economies. It is surely madness that the Amazon rainforest, on which the world fundamentally depends—each and every one of us—and without which the world would be thrown into chaos and turmoil, has no real recognised value until it is cashed in for commodities and throwaway goods. That just does not make sense.
That is something that the Government understand and are grappling with. For example, we are aligning our economic objectives and decision-making processes with our net-zero commitments; we are moving towards nature-proofing our decisions as well, and this Bill is a part of that.
The Treasury’s Green Book, which the noble Baroness mentioned, requires that all impacts on society as a whole, including environmental impacts, are assessed when policy is developed, and that includes monetised and non-monetised climate environmental impacts. The Treasury is currently conducting a review into the application of the discount rate for future environmental impacts, to try to ensure that decision-making probably accounts for the value of the environment. In their response to the Treasury-commissioned Dasgupta review, the Government have committed to ensuring that their economic and financial decision-making and the systems and institutions that underpin it support the delivery of a nature-positive future.
As all speakers so far in this debate have acknowledged, we have a very long way to go. It is not easy, but it needs to be done. Without that, we will fail to reconcile lives and the economy, nature and the economy, in the way that we will need to if we want a sustainable future.
Moving on to Amendment 288, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that, as the Environment Secretary set out in his response to her Private Member’s Bill on this subject, the Government take their air quality obligations extremely seriously. In this Bill, we have committed to setting ambitious, legally binding targets on air quality, to drive further emissions reductions, which will deliver significant benefits to the environment and human health. Specifically, the Secretary of State, will be required to set a new target on PM 2.5 to act as a minimum standard across the country, and an additional long-term exposure-reduction target to drive continuous improvement, including in areas that meet the new minimum standard for PM 2.5. This novel, dual-target approach is strongly supported by the experts and will deliver significant public health benefits by reducing our exposure to this pollutant in all areas of the country.
The Bill also includes measures to require regular refreshers of the national air quality strategy. The first review will be published in 2023, and we will be looking to develop a stronger support and capability-building framework, so that local authorities have the necessary tools to take the action needed locally to reduce people’s exposure to air pollutants.
Alongside that, the Bill changes the local authority air quality management framework to promote co-operation at all tiers of local government and with relevant public authorities. This will ensure that central and local government and public authorities work together towards achieving cleaner air and a healthier environment for us all. The Government continue to work closely with the Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Transport, the Air Quality Expert Group, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants and a wide range of other sector experts to drive concerted action to improve air quality.
However, not all air pollution is under the control of government, either nationally or locally. Significant contributions to UK air pollution can come from other countries, depending on the weather. For example, up to a third of the UK’s current levels of particulate matter pollution comes from other European countries. UK air quality can be affected by distant volcanoes and dust flowing in from as far away as the Sahara. The transboundary and transnational nature of air pollution therefore makes it ill-suited to be a general or formalised human right.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions on these important matters, and hope that they will not press their amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate and all their expressions of support for the amendments—perhaps even, in intent, at least, from the Minister; and I thank him for his detailed answer. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb asked, “What is the Government for?” Surely, one of the purposes is to ensure we have clean air to breathe and to ensure that we have a healthy life for future generations —something that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, is trying to do by other means.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, offered welcome support and said very clearly that we need goals to be identified and made concrete, acknowledging that we must consider the global impact of our environment. The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, said that we cannot go on just generating greenhouse gases—how could it be better summed up?—particularly highlighting our position of COP chair, and stressed the need for statistical compatibility and credibility in Glasgow. I think perhaps we may just park the emperor with no clothes metaphor, but it is certainly apt.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, stressed the need for the Treasury to engage in this debate, with which I can only very much agree, and spoke about the need for all departments to be engaged in environmental issues, with which I of course agree. My amendment is focused on the narrow issue of economic measurement, moving away from the failed, damaging emphasis on GDP.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, focused on reprogramming the economy, something we clearly need to do, and said that it needs a rethink at the highest level. As she was speaking, I thought that perhaps the highest level in the Government should be Defra, because that is the place where it all starts. She also stressed the need for leadership from the top.
I particularly have to welcome the Minister’s comments, many of which reflect speeches that I give regularly about the total misalignment of using GDP as a welfare measure. I just wish that we could hear that from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, or Rishi Sunak in the other place, instead of only from the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. He referred to the Dasgupta report, which is useful and important. At least by using pound values it puts all the issues into terms that the Treasury can understand.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 287. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 287
“International crime of ecocide
(1) It is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government to support the negotiation of an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to establish a crime of ecocide.(2) In pursuance of subsection (1), a relevant Minister of the Crown must propose, either independently or jointly with other sovereign states, an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court within 12 months of the passing of this Act.(3) In this section “ecocide” refers to harm to nature which is severe and widespread or long-term.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments is simple and coherent. Both the amendments address the proposed international offence of ecocide. Noble Lords will see that the amendments have cross-party and non-party support. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Boycott, for supporting them.
Amendment 293D sets out the definition of ecocide, which means,
“unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts”.
The treatment that the planet and many of its people have received is criminal, and it is time that the crime was acknowledged and prevented. We are killing the ecosystems on which we rely and gravely depleting the natural world, putting at risk the many wondrous and beautiful natural systems of which we have so little understanding.
In acknowledgement of that, for more than a decade lawyers have been working on a new international law to protect this fragile planet—a law of ecocide. It is proposed that it becomes part of the Rome statute, which contains the international crime of genocide. Many people will associate this campaign with the late, great barrister and campaigner Polly Higgins. The crime of ecocide has been a topic of debate since the Vietnam War when Agent Orange was used by the US Army to defoliate vast areas of jungle. Since then, incidents of irreversible destruction to ecosystems and the ocean have led to further and ongoing proposals for this crime to be adjudicated by the International Criminal Court.
I first encountered this proposal at a one-day seminar at the British Library in 2008. Work then was already well advanced but, in the decade since, it has advanced much further. The French have already written the crime into their climate law. The Belgians and Dutch are considering doing likewise and nearly a dozen national constitutions include a recognition of ecocide. Research by the European Law Institute seeks to draw up a model law for the EU. In May, the European Parliament encouraged the EU and its members,
“to pave the way within the International Criminal Court (ICC) towards new negotiations between the parties with a view to recognising ‘ecocide’ as an international crime”.
Three of the countries that already recognise this crime are signatories to the Rome statute. Therefore, if, as I suggest, the UK successfully proposed an ecocide amendment, a total of 130 countries would recognise it as a crime, 123 of which could then take a case to the ICC for adjudication. I note, however, that the US, China and India are not state parties. There has also been publicly recorded interest from Bangladesh, Canada, Finland, Luxembourg, the Maldives, Spain and Vanuatu.
Noble Lords will note that Amendment 293D arrived rather late to this Committee. That is because it uses a new, further-developed definition of the law of ecocide that has only just been released by a distinguished expert international panel of jurists. The definition in the amendment, however, differs from the international definition by excluding a reference to outer space. The Public Bill Office declared that that was out of scope of the Bill, and while there is an argument for outer space being part of our environment, I decided to leave that discussion to another day. I note for noble Lords’ interest that the maximum penalty of 30 years’ imprisonment reflects that which applies to genocide under UK law.
When—and I am sure that it is when—the crime is incorporated into the Rome statute, it will eventually make its way into UK law. Surely not even the current Government’s carelessness as regards international law would prevent that. But the world and our nature-depleted, plastic and pollution-choked islands cannot wait, which is why I put forward Amendment 293D.
It is worth noting that, astonishingly, the Bill as it currently stands makes no mention of ecosystems and, therefore, there can be no protection of ecosystems. Amendments contain at least five references to ecosystems, which shows that there is a desire across the House to introduce this, and introducing a crime of ecocide would be a comprehensive way in which to do that.
The lead amendment, Amendment 287, offers the international perspective and calls for the Government to commit to supporting the international Stop Ecocide campaign and within 12 months of the Act coming into force to present—alone or, I expect, with others—a proposal to amend the Rome statute.
I should love to think that the Government will embrace both these amendments but I am a realist. I am aware also that creating a whole new legal offence is something our legal eagles and those across the country are likely to want to chew over for some time. I am very much looking forward to the thoughts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, on Amendment 293D, which I am sure will help inform future thinking on the UK offence. There is a definite opportunity for a stand-alone Private Member’s Bill here. So I am unlikely to pursue that amendment to Report but regard it as a start to the UK debate.
However, that is not the case with Amendment 287. As countries, campaign groups and lawyers across the globe line up behind the call to amend the Rome statute, the UK needs to be on board. As the chair of the COP 26 climate talks, how could we be anywhere else?
I am almost finished, but I have one final question for the Minister. Will he agree to meet with the ecocide campaign and have his officials look at the outputs from the Independent Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide? I thank other noble Lords who are taking part in this debate and those who have already offered their support. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
It is a great delight to support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in the amendment. I, like her, believe that ecocide will be introduced as a crime on an international basis and will join the Rome statute alongside the more familiar crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity.
The point about ecocide is that it has to be wanton and deliberate. Here are just a few examples that might be able to have that label attached to them. In Jack Harries’s new powerful film “The Breakdown”, he shows us a closed-door meeting with Exxon executives in 1977. Their scientist James Black delivers a presentation called “The Greenhouse Effect” in which he warns that carbon dioxide from the world’s use of fossil fuels is warming the planet and will eventually endanger humanity. He is quoted as saying:
“Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
Exxon in 1977 took his report seriously and over subsequent years invested millions upon millions of dollars into cutting-edge climate change science and hired the world’s top scientists and engineers to help to get to the bottom of the inconvenient truth. Therefore, weirdly, a lot of early science was done by the fossil fuel companies, in part to understand the impact of their work but in part to understand where their new drilling opportunities might be. It was, strangely, the first golden age of climate research.
However, quite quickly—by 1982—the research had piled up, and it did not look so good. The impact of fossil fuels on climate change was now unquestionable. In a leaked document addressed to “Exxon personnel only”, environmental affairs manager MB Glaser wrote:
“Mitigation of the ‘greenhouse effect’ would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.”
He suggested that if this was not done—again, this was in 1982—there could be “potentially catastrophic events” such as the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, which would cause a sea level rise in the order of five metres.
The men in charge did not like what they were hearing—it was too big and too bothersome and it was going to threaten their livelihoods—so, in 1983, a year later, they decided to stop listening to the scientists and listen to their accountants instead. Overnight, the troublesome little hitch called climate change effectively ceased to exist in the annals of the coal industry. Overnight, Exxon cut the funding for climate research from $900,000 a year to $150,000 a year—out of a total research budget that stood then at $600 million—and those pessimistic sponges in lab coats stopped being invited to meetings. A culture of denial was born, lifted straight from the tobacco industry—the one that said, “Cigarettes won’t give you lung cancer, keep buying them”. In this case, the industry said, “No, climate change isn’t real, so fill up your tank”.
I know that it is not within our remit—and never will be within anybody’s remit, I think—to prosecute ExxonMobil, which, as Channel 4 revealed a couple of weeks ago, is still at it. It has been pressurising President Biden over his green economy and new deal, to the extent that a lot of the investment in new green jobs has been taken away. As the lobbyist on “Channel 4 News” said, “We’re really happy because he’s sticking to infrastructure and roads and highways as a way of creating new jobs”.
Coming back to our own climate disaster, after the death of young Ella Kissi-Debrah a couple of years ago, the law did find that her death had been made possible or enhanced by the fact that she was breathing bad air. The fact that the fossil fuel companies played a part in this starts to make two parts of the story come together.
As I say, the question of ecocide is a question of intent. The £90 million fine handed out to Southern Water last week is a great step; £90 million is a lot of money. Even so, the company’s profits that year were about £200 million. Its pollution has killed countless fish and destroyed habitats and wildlife, not to mention the sea creatures whose homes have been irreparably damaged by raw sewage. As the Guardian reported:
“Andrew Marshall, appearing at the sentencing hearing for the regulator, told Canterbury crown court that Southern Water, which is ultimately under the control of Greensands Holdings”—
a private company—
opened storm tanks to release raw sewage into coastal waters in north Kent and the Solent to increase its own financial benefits. The company also allowed storm tanks to be kept full and to turn septic, instead of putting millions of litres of raw sewage through the treatment process as required by law.”
This flagrant and wanton act was carried out with the full knowledge of the damage that could ensue. So, yes, £90 million is terrific from one point of view, but is it not also something more? Should not a crime that would send people to prison or really shame them, such as ecocide, be attached to Andrew Marshall, the boss of Southern Water? The threats to nature and wildlife that our current practices present are talked about a lot these days. Finding someone responsible is never easy; we have not even managed to hold anyone responsible for Grenfell yet. Yet here is a case where we are damaging and threatening our natural world every day.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, many countries in Europe are already debating whether to introduce an ecocide law into their home legislation. A number of countries already have their own ecocide laws. For instance, Article 358 of the Russian criminal code states:
“Massive destruction of the animal or plant kingdoms, contamination of the atmosphere or water resources, and also commission of other actions capable of causing an ecological catastrophe, shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of 12 to 20 years.”
Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Armenia have also passed laws which mean that the country can send someone to prison for a wanton and knowing act of ecological disaster.
Frankly, it is uncertain how many people will die in the next few years because of climate change and nature depletion, or how many more millions of people will be forced to leave their homes, looking for sanctuary in the remaining kinder climates—but it will be a lot. It will dwarf previous acts of genocide and crimes against humanity. We must start to hold individuals accountable. Obviously, this law needs to be international —I urge the Government to work with others to make it so—but could we start by at least discussing it as a possible national offence, too? We cannot expect the world to adopt this if we do not apply it here. As we all know, on the eighth day of this long and wonderful environment debate, we have only one home; it is very precious and we need tougher laws to protect it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was actually disappointed—but perhaps not surprised—to see this amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. For some time, I have been following the way in which “ecocide” has become a fashionable term to hype up human engagement with nature in a wholly negative way. I am not as familiar as the noble Baroness is with the legal definitions that she explained, but I feel that “ecocide” is an especially emotive word cynically designed to invoke thoughts of evil genocide. It implies that our relationship with nature and the different ways in which we interact with the environment are as heinous, deliberate and destructive as the Holocaust—which, to be frank, I find distasteful.
The term I am more familiar with is on the level of cultural discussion and the way in which the term “ecocide” has been used to criminalise, even if metaphorically, a whole range of human activities that have an impact on the environment. There is an unpleasant misanthropic aspect, as well, in associating human impact with wanton ecological destruction—something that I raised in my remarks at Second Reading.
Reading the literature on ecocide over the years, I have seen humans described as “a cancer on the environment”, “a parasite species on the planet” and “a virus infecting the earth’s body”. This emphasises the negative aspects of human culpability and destruction, rather than seeing humanity and civilisation as a source of creative solutions, which is more helpful. Civilisation and development have allowed our species to use knowledge, reason, ingenuity and innovation to aspire to improve the conditions of life. I would rather we celebrated the huge gains of the progress, political change and technological innovation that have driven humanity from the Stone Age through to the 21st century, yet “ecocide” and the discussion around it focuses wholly on humanity as an agent of destruction.
I worry that the whole discourse on “ecocide” expresses a disillusion with those gains—the fruits of modernity and the economic growth that we have benefited from and witnessed, particularly in the West. It views the rapid development of the rest of the world in a wholly negative way, as though somehow the use of fossil fuels in order to grow is potentially akin to mass murder, as the comparison with genocide suggests. It flirts dangerously closely with romanticising Stone Age lack of development elsewhere. In debates on earlier groups of amendments, I heard a number of noble Lords criticise GDP and say that it does not represent very much. Well, in my view, we do not have enough GDP. I want more of it for the masses of the world. Certainly, without it, well-being is nigh on impossible, and I have worried throughout this discussion on the environment that a clash is being set up between GDP—that is, economic development and growth—and matters around the environment.
It certainly seems to me that charges of activities typically dubbed ecocide are too easily levelled at countries and people trying to develop to escape immiseration, poverty and hunger. China, India and Brazil are often discussed in these terms, and I wonder who will be charged with ecocide. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, listed a number of big bad companies—in her view. That anti-corporate “They should be held responsible and blamed for the people killed” is something we are familiar with.
But I worry that ordinary people in Brazil and other parts of the developing world are implicated and criminalised for felling forests and clearing land for agriculture, as we in the West have done before and benefited from, in industrial revolutions and modernisation. I get nervous, in this discussion of ecocide, of a rather arrogant neocolonial instinct about who will be accused of ecocide, who will police those accused of it and even whether it will become a justification for western intervention, with all these green-helmet lawyers going around the world saving nature from the destructive activity of ordinary people. I totally reject this amendment.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is interesting to hear the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but I take a different line. As a member of Peers for the Planet, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on introducing the concept behind these amendments to your Lordships’ House and I am pleased to add my name to them.
I confess I was disappointed when my questions to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about adding the crime of ecocide to the Rome statute received, first, the answer that there were no such plans. His next answer, which I have just received in time—for which I am grateful—adduced various traditional diplomatic reasons, but I still hope we can make a start. I think we should.
Of course, ecocide is an innovatory idea, and innovations are disturbing and disruptive. This one requires different thinking about human rights. The Rome statute and, for that matter, the United Nations human rights instruments have a specific human focus on what is needed to establish and maintain well-being. We in the UK have taken an even narrower view, in that we have not implemented the economic and social rights set out in the convention, only the civil and political ones. But the concept of ecocide is hardly dangerously revolutionary; it was mooted by Olof Palme in 1972 and, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Boycott, say, France and others are in the process of incorporating it into their laws.
Our environment is so critical to our well-being that we need to think in new ways about how to protect it from the damage being done to it. I think all your Lordships value our natural environment. That clearly emerges from the debates on this Bill and the answers of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. We should put that into practice by cherishing its biological and botanical elements and, therefore, ought to support efforts to get this into international law.
Already one of our most distinguished human rights lawyers, Philippe Sands QC, is working on how this value can be made justiciable at the International Criminal Court. The definition has now been agreed by all 12 of the eminent international lawyers in the group he chairs. For once, I hope our Government can be a bit ahead of the curve and support these amendments.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on tabling these two amendments, which give us the opportunity to consider these important issues. I broadly welcome the principles underlying them both and will take each in turn, first, that relating to international law. Before doing so, I briefly mention, as disclosed in the Members’ register, that I am a vice-president of the European Law Institute. Although I am not directly involved in its work, to which I will refer, I take a close interest in it.
It is important to appreciate that the development of international crimes has, over the centuries, reflected the desire of nations to ensure that international criminal law keeps pace with evolving standards. At present, the only international environment crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is environmental damage as a war crime, under Article 8(2)(b)(iv). It has a high threshold, as it requires:
“Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”.
That is a high standard and is set out in the context of war, but we have moved on. It is now necessary for us to examine what should be an international crime in the context of the environment outside war.
Progress has been made in a number of individual conventions directed at certain trades but, as was set out in the 2018 report of the UN Secretary-General, Gaps in International Environmental Law and Environment- related Instruments: Towards a Global Pact for the Environment, there is no single overarching framework. The law is piecemeal and reactive and, for the most part, conventions depend on national law for their enforcement.
In this context, the important steps of the last few years have seen developing impetus for the designation of a more general crime of ecocide triable before the international court. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, the late Polly Higgins spent much of the latter part of her life moving this forward. Again, as has been mentioned, last month, a panel of international experts put forward a definition of ecocide. While this requires detailed consideration and, in my view, further work, it is a further important step in getting to grips with establishing an international crime.
It seems plain to me that transnational concern for the environment and evolving standards have now reached the stage where the international community can begin to move towards designating ecocide as an international crime. I therefore ask the Minister, given Britain’s new global role, where it is important that we show leadership, what steps are we taking as a nation to keep up with this evolving international standard, in accordance with the long traditions of the development of international criminal law?
In parallel to this work, as it may take some years to move international criminal law forward—one has to be realistic about this—the UK ought to consider moving forward its own criminal law to establish the crime of ecocide, or other similar crimes, as set out in Amendment 293D. As has been mentioned, the European Law Institute is looking at a number of matters: first, the definition put forward by the panel of experts; but, more importantly in the domestic context, devising a model law. This would primarily be for the use of the European Union but, as the institute is Europe-wide, for other nations as well. It will provide a definition and workable set of principles to criminalise this activity and, importantly, civil remedies in tort or delict. I therefore welcome Amendment 293D in principle, although it is clear that more work needs to be done in this area.
Therefore, my second question to the Minister is: what are Her Majesty’s Government intending to do in this respect? Have the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, which are the prime movers of legal thought in England, Wales and Scotland, been asked to consider this work and provide a crime of ecocide?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, when I saw that the speakers’ list said Baroness Khan, I was worried. I thought I might have to text my beloved Lady Khan in Burnley and ask her to come and represent the Front Bench.
The question of whether the UK should adopt and build on proposals currently being considered by members of the International Criminal Court is an interesting one, and we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling these amendments. Their message is clear; they are simple and coherent.
The first amendment asks the UK Government to play an active role in the international negotiations to establish a crime of ecocide. We hope that the UK, as a state party to the Rome statute, is indeed participating in those discussions and playing a constructive role. Can the Minister confirm what position we have been taking in such talks? I look forward to hearing from him on that. The second amendment seeks to establish a domestic criminal offence of ecocide. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, spoke with great expertise and knowledge when she talked about domestic laws coming in in Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, where people are causing ecological disaster.
The crime of ecocide has been a topic of debate since the Vietnam War, as has been mentioned, when the US army defoliated vast areas of jungle for military advantage. Since then, instances of irreversible damage or destruction to ecosystems—for example, to boreal forests, tropical forests and the oceans—have led to proposals to make ecocide an international crime on a par with genocide. The point that this is on a par with genocide and crimes against humanity has been made very eloquently by noble Lords.
In 2018, 94 UK academics urged those with power to defend life itself from an unprecedented disaster of our own making. The UK Parliament responded by becoming the first country to declare a climate emergency. Since 2019, 2,000 places across 34 countries have declared a climate and ecological emergency at local, regional, state or national level.
A suggested solution to the climate and ecological emergency has been gaining traction in legal, political and academic circles. The use of ecological law has been put forward as a solution, focusing on criminal damage to, or the destruction of, ecosystems, which has been mooted as the ecocide law. The question of whether to establish a criminal offence and, if so, how such a process should be undertaken is always complex. We have interpreted the amendment as a means of probing the Government’s intentions in this area. We hope the Minister can provide a detailed response, either from the Dispatch Box or in writing following the conclusion of the Committee.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for Amendments 287 and 293D on ecocide. I strongly agree with the premise of her argument. The appalling fact is that we are currently destroying life on earth. Each minute we lose around 30 football pitches-worth of tropical forest. We have seen a 70% decline in key species since 1970, which is a mere nanosecond in evolutionary terms. Nowhere is spared: a third of marine mammals are threatened with extinction; an estimated 35% of the world’s marine and coastal wetland areas were lost between 1970 and 2015, at three times the rate of forest loss; and half the world’s seabird species are already affected by ocean plastic. At the same time, we are destabilising the world’s climate. Although there is no computer model in the world sophisticated enough to fully predict the effects, we know that they will be dire.
It is of course a tragedy in and of itself, but it is also a human tragedy. A billion people depend on forests for their livelihoods. As those forests are destroyed, so too are their livelihoods. Around 200 million people depend on fish for their livelihoods. As we exhaust the oceans, those people and their families are often left destitute. When ecosystems fail, so too do the many free and hopelessly undervalued services that nature provides. Because it is the world’s poorest people who are likely to depend most directly on those free services, it is they who will suffer first and worst. I say that in response to comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Ultimately, we all depend on the health of the planet, and its destruction has grave implications for us all. Indeed, as we sit in this Chamber, metres apart, it is worth reflecting that coronavirus itself is likely a symptom of our dysfunctional relationship with the natural world. Even if that is wrong and in this instance it is not, it is certainly the case that most pandemics are.
Objectively, it must be the case that killing ecosystems on which so many people depend has to be among the most serious of crimes. I recognise that not everyone will agree with that, but I ask those people to consider what their response might be to someone pouring poison into another person’s water supply, pumping toxic gas through someone’s window, or setting fire to a person’s farm. No one, I think, would doubt for a second the gravity of such crimes, so it should not be seen as any different when it is done by a multinational corporation in a foreign land, except, of course, at a bigger scale.
We have strong environmental laws in England, which carry fines and potential imprisonment for the most serious offences. There is a whole ecosystem of enforcement authorities: the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Forestry Commission, the Marine Management Organisation, Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, local authorities, the police and Defra itself. In particularly egregious cases, significant sanctions are sought. For example, as has been mentioned, only last week Southern Water was fined £90 million for pumping raw sewage into protected waters around the south-east coast. There were also convictions against several employees of Southern Water, who obstructed Environment Agency investigators. But there is no doubt that our regulatory framework can be improved. That is one of the things we are trying to do with this Bill, not least with the new OEP.
There is no doubt that, around the world, the true cost of serious environmental crime or ecocide is not reflected in our response to it. Sadly, ecocide is not yet a crime recognised under international law and there is currently no consensus on its legal definition. Indeed, before the ICC and the crimes it has jurisdiction over could be established by the Rome statute, which was adopted in 1998, ecocide had to be removed in the drafting stages due to a lack of agreement among the states party to the court. The Rome statute provides for some protections for the natural environment in armed conflict—it designates international attacks that knowingly and excessively cause
“widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”
as war crimes—but ecocide as a stand-alone crime is not yet recognised.
The UK’s current priority regarding the International Criminal Court is to try to reform it, so that it functions more efficiently and effectively and can deliver successful prosecutions of crimes in its jurisdiction and bring accountability for victims. I know that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will share that ambition. Reform of the court is a long and complicated process, driven by the states party to the Rome statute. Their involvement is fundamental to success. A significant amendment such as that proposed by the noble Baroness is unlikely to achieve the support of two-thirds of the states party, which is necessary to amend the Rome statute to make ecocide an international crime. The view, therefore, is that pursuing it would require an enormous amount of heavy lifting diplomatically, with little prospect at this stage of succeeding. That would likely also detract from the goal of improving the court’s effectiveness, which, in any case, would be a prerequisite for any meaningful application of ecocide.
I will end there. We are unable to accept the noble Baroness’s proposals. I therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in this very informed and informative debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, stressed the basis of this crime as being wanton and deliberate action, using two very clear examples. The first is Exxon in 1977 in terms of its understanding of the climate emergency then. Secondly, flagrant breaches of the law are occurring on our own shores with the treatment of our water supplies and the spillages of sewage into them. Those are two useful examples of how we think an ecocide law would operate in practice.
Can we imagine, for a moment, being in a boardroom and hearing the chief legal officer saying to the chief executive officer, “If we took this action, the law of ecocide might just be used” and what a powerful force that would be? As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, says, it is a powerful word and a rightfully powerful word for destroying the natural world, on which we all depend. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, made a very important point by saying that we cannot expect the world to go forward if we are not prepared to adopt this law and take action ourselves.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, suggested that this was looking at human interaction with nature in a wholly negative way. I am not sure how she could regard the two examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, as anything but wholly negative. She also suggested that, at times, this term has been used metaphorically. But of course, that is not what we are talking about here; we are talking about law. The term “murder” is often used metaphorically but that does not stop it being an essential legal charge used in a legal way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, also referred to the needs of the global south. It is the global south that has suffered probably the largest amounts of environmental damage, human rights abuse, poverty and inequality from our extractive, exploitative approach to nature. All around us, we have the products of the global south’s land and, of course, the global south’s labour and ingenuity—most often insufficiently remunerated.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her support and commend her on championing the issue of ecocide through Written Questions. She highlighted the international support for the creation of this crime and the fact that the Briton Philippe Sands QC is working very much in the leading role on this, reflecting the UK’s long-term position as a leader in international human rights law and legal protection.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his hugely informed and thoughtful contribution and expression of support for the principles. The historical perspectives that he provided were also particularly useful, acknowledging that international law has evolved with international standards and highlighting the developing impetus towards a crime of ecocide. He stressed the global role and the need for leadership and called for the UK to step forward and take a lead.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, called for a constructive role for the UK in negotiation. I appreciate that call, which very much reflects the content of my Amendment 287. He spoke very effectively, saying that the law of ecocide is defending the land itself and made the link to the many declarations of climate and nature emergencies.
The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, gave us a very full account of the sixth great extinction and the way ecological damage does not impact just on nature but on human health and life—as we have seen with Covid. He said that there was no consensus, but surely the UK could and should be providing that leadership. As a nation, global Britain aims to be world-leading. I acknowledge his concern about the reform of the International Criminal Court, but that is a separate issue from the nature of the Rome statute. The Minister suggested that there was little prospect of this international drive succeeding. That is clearly not the view taken by the EU.
Before we come to the conclusion of this group, the Minister was asked a couple of questions that were not answered. I would like to put them to him again. First, I asked if he would be prepared to meet Stop Ecocide campaigners and ask his officials to take a look at the proposed new international definition. Secondly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, asked whether the Government would ask the Law Commission to consider this issue. May I put those two questions to the Minister before we proceed?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am happy to agree to both requests.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
I thank the Minister for that one answer. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 293C. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make this clear in debate.
Lord Khan of Burnley
“Readiness of local authorities to deliver schemes enabled under this Act
(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the readiness of local authorities to deliver environmental schemes established or otherwise enabled under this Act.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the extent to which the current financial and staffing resource of local authorities is consistent with that required for such bodies to fulfil additional obligations as they arise.(3) If the review determines that current resourcing for local authorities is insufficient for them to meet relevant obligations, the Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable, make a statement confirming—(a) whether central government funding for local authorities will be increased accordingly, or(b) what mechanisms Her Majesty’s Government proposes to establish to enable local authorities to recover any additional costs.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish—(a) the review under subsection (1), and(b) any statement under subsection (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause is intended to explore the extent to which local authorities are financially and otherwise prepared to deliver new schemes and responsibilities established under this legislation.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I move Amendment 293C, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. In doing so, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for signing the text.
Local authorities have been underfunded for years, with the majority having a decreasing budget for waste and recycling services. This bleak picture will certainly present a challenge to implementation but, as we can see from other countries, recycling success can be achieved through targeted government investment.
Having served in local government for 15 years, including holding the cabinet position for finance at Burnley Borough Council, I have witnessed first-hand the effects of drastic cuts, with local councils barely able to deliver statutory services. My observations and experiences are backed up in terms of the environment by the Environmental Audit Committee’s recent report Biodiversity in the UK: Bloom or Bust?. It highlighted that funding shortfalls and a lack of “in-house ecologists” in local authorities means that they may not have the capacity to deliver some of their statutory duties under the Bill, specifically biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery strategies.
For the Government’s environmental ambitions to be realised, new duties on local authorities to help them deliver nature recovery must be costed and funded accordingly. Local authorities are essential to the successful implementation of many provisions in the Bill. For example, they will play an important role in co-ordinating and delivering nature recovery on the ground through the creation of local nature recovery strategies—as mentioned before. However, their effectiveness relies on the resources and expertise they have available to deploy these crucial tools. It is firmly believed that, due to recent funding cuts, only one in four local authorities in England currently has access to an in-house ecologist. Costs incurred by local authorities to implement new schemes resulting from the Bill should be covered by the Government’s new burdens obligation. It would be helpful if the Minister could make an unequivocal statement on this in the Chamber.
This proposed new clause is intended to explore the extent to which local authorities are financially prepared to deliver new schemes and responsibilities established under this legislation. This is day eight in Committee and many noble Lords at Second Reading and in Committee have talked about this being a landmark, historic Bill —something that will be working for generations for the future of our children. However, you need to give the relevant stakeholders—in particular, here, local authorities —the tools and support. This amendment gives us the opportunity to look at the cost and funding element of local authorities. I have been there as a local government member making those tough decisions. These tough decisions are for the benefit of our future.
If we do not support local authorities, it is like asking noble Lords to run across Westminster Bridge or a race of 100 metres without any trainers or adequate footwear. It is not fair; you need to give them the right tools to do the job. This is essential to ensure that we are not setting up local authorities to fail and letting them down again—as, unfortunately, this Government have a habit of doing.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 293C. I am sure we are all pleased to see the noble Lord in his place and that his wife was not called upon on this occasion. I am pleased to speak to this amendment because I am asking my noble friend the Minister to join me in applauding and valuing the work of local authorities in delivering schemes, particularly under this Bill, but also historically and to-date.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, spoke with great authority on waste disposal schemes and recycling. I will speak of my experience of the role that they play so effectively in flood-prevention schemes. Being closely associated with the Pickering Slowing the Flow pilot scheme, I think that this was exemplary because it included just about every level of local authority—Ryedale District Council, North Yorkshire County Council, Pickering Town Council, the Environment Agency and many others—which enthusiastically supported and contributed financially to it.
The weight of responsibility on local authorities will be eased in this regard if we could rope more private partners into these schemes, as I know that the Government are trying to do. I look forward to supporting anything that the Government can come up with in this regard.
However, upper-tier councils and unitary authorities play another role: an ongoing role of monitoring flood risk and identifying and mapping the areas most at risk. This is a crucial role that is often forgotten in times outside flood periods. Councils have come under huge pressure and have performed extremely well during the pandemic, which should be noted and celebrated.
However, if we value their work in this regard, as I do, will my noble friend seek to use his good offices to ensure that the work they do and the money that is allocated to it are ring-fenced and do not come under increasing pressure from the other work that they do, particularly caring for the vulnerable, such as the elderly, and providing education for the very young? I am grateful for the opportunity, in the context of this amendment, to make those few points and applaud the work of local authorities in this regard.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whose work on the Bill has been so thorough and admired. I welcome the tabling of this new clause and agree very much with the points made by my noble friend Lord Khan in speaking to it. As we all know, the role of local authorities has been important—indeed, crucial—in the battle against Covid. These same local authorities will also play a key role in helping to deliver environmental and climate change targets.
I will supplement some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Khan, having taken some soundings from local authorities in my own area in the north-east, including one covering a large rural area, with Conservative control, and another in an urban area, with Labour control. It was interesting that, despite these obvious differences, the authorities were largely in agreement about the opportunities and challenges presented to them by the Bill.
The authorities concerned have a strong commitment to biodiversity and the principle of biodiversity net gain. Where I live in Northumberland, we are very much on the front line in the efforts to prevent the disappearance of the red squirrel, and, on this issue, there is not just local authority support but very strong public support. On Tyneside, the area that I used to represent in the other place, the importance of biodiversity was publicly understood by the presence of the farthest inland colony of kittiwakes and the establishment of the Kittiwake Tower local nature reserve around the Newcastle-Gateshead Quayside. For that reason, I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said about kittiwakes earlier.
The authorities that I have consulted are strongly committed to the principles of the Bill; they all supported biodiversity net gain, the importance of local nature recovery strategies and the importance of consistency, and the highest standards of recycling and waste collection. However, all were agreed on the following points. First, they were concerned about having the necessary resources. Secondly, they felt that, in many ways, the devil was in the detail, so clear guidance would be crucial and their continued involvement in such guidance would also be very important.
On resources, it was felt that, if not properly resourced, outcomes would be unsatisfactory and not properly meet the obligations that the Government and the local authorities want to enter into. My noble friend made the point about additional skilled resources, and I ask the Government what assessment they have made of the availability of trained ecologists? Do they have a clear strategy in terms of how we can boost training schemes in a timely manner so that any shortfalls in skills can be addressed? I think that some local authorities worry that organisations like Natural England, which have understandably seen their budget increase in recent years, might be in a better place to recruit trained staff than local authorities, many of which, as was eloquently described by my noble friend, have experienced deep cuts in recent years and have had to concentrate on core services such as social care and cut back on other areas.
While there was strong support for the principle of biodiversity net gain, some worries were expressed in the response to the government consultation. I recognise that the Government have shown willingness to address the issues that arose in the consultation, but I also note that in their response, they said they did not think that any particular type of development would be disproportionately affected by their proposals. This puzzled me because it seems to me that there are concerns in urban areas that the proposals could cause problems.
Ironically, brownfield sites in urban areas can often be more biodiverse than sites in farmed countryside in rural areas because many of them have, in effect, been rewilded in recent years. However, because of low property values and the desire to see affordable housing built there, quite rightly, such sites may face financial viability issues. Rather than going into the details about this, I would like the Minister to engage with urban authorities to discuss in more detail their valid concerns about biodiversity net gain in such areas, simply to reassure them that they will not, for financial reasons, find difficulty in meeting the goals have been set and which they fully support.
There is also concern about the detail on waste and recycling standards, and there is keenness to see that money is spent to bring about the best environmental outcome. There are some concerns that what might seem cost effective or simply tick the right box on food collection, for example, is not the best environmental way forward. There is also the issue of current contracts, which needs to be looked at, if local authorities are already locked into longish or long-term contracts. In delivering these proposals, councils need to be fully funded and ring-fenced. They need to know how the funding will be sourced, calculated and allocated, and whether this will have implications for other areas of the local government settlement. In short, this needs to be resourced for the best outcome.
On the detail of what local authorities are being asked to do, the point has been made to me that we need to reflect in detail on some of the difficult trade-offs that may arise. For example, local authorities might be asked to achieve the right diversity in the wrong place. I will give a local example: in Northumberland, we have Kielder Forest, which used to be a huge and very densely planted forestry area. It has become a very valuable tourist resource these days, but felling is taking place, and there will be pressure to plant more trees. Yet planting trees in peat bogs is not environmentally sound, and new trees, particularly native trees and anything other than the dreaded Sitka spruce, about which the Minister knows my views, might be better situated in some of the arable farming areas. However, that also gives rise to questions.
There can also be complications about trade-offs between, for example, the habitats of particular birds that nest in open countryside. We have to set that against the need to plant more trees, which is also environmentally very important—so, to resolve these issues, it seems to me that there will be a need for good communication between local authorities and the Government to ensure that local decisions, taken perhaps for very good reasons, do none the less fit into the wider vital effort to save the planet and fulfil wider environmental obligations.
I am sure that it would help the Government on many issues to deal with groups of local authorities, particularly in the context of nature recovery strategies. In the case of my own part of the world, I express the personal hope that the maximum amount of local authority joint working can be agreed, from Berwick in the north to the south of County Durham on the other hand, rather than a divide between north and south of Tyne, which makes no economic or environmental sense and ignores the increasing willingness of the authorities to work together. On the environment, my understanding is that there is already a good network of officer engagement, driven by practical considerations.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support this amendment. Clearly, it is unsatisfactory if local authorities cannot deploy this Bill’s prescriptions.
As is here implied, such failure might simply reflect lack of local government staff and financial resources. If so, it is up to the Government to redress that deficiency.
Yet at every given and relevant moment, central funding might well not be considered to be affordable at all, even if the Government might equally lament that their own legislation could not be deployed as a result.
However, that anomaly is prevented by this proposed new clause, which would make it obligatory for a future Government to provide funds so their own laws and prescriptions are properly carried out at local levels.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and to offer the Green group’s strong support for Amendment 293C. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, for his clear introduction and explanation. I also declare my position as vice-chair of the Local Government Association.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, referred to the waste recycling problem, which gives me an irresistible chance to plug the need to reduce costs by promoting reusable nappies, an issue already discussed and which we will come back to. On the broader issue, it is worth noting that the National Audit Office, in its 2018 report on the financial sustainability of local authorities, found that recent government approaches had been
“characterised by one-off and short-term funding fixes”
and a
“crisis-driven approach to managing local authority finances”.
Earlier this year, the NAO said that at least 25 councils were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, which is hardly surprising when in the past decade the spending power of local government has been cut by one-third, while demands in many areas, notably adult social care, have grown.
If we are to give local authorities additional roles and responsibilities, this direction comes from Westminster, and the money has to come from Westminster too. I note that last December the Blueprint Coalition, formed from local government organisations, environmental NGOs and academics and supported by around 100 councils, warned that our 2050 net-zero target could be achieved only with the
“full participation of, and support for, local authorities”.
That report was specifically focused on the climate side of the environmental equation but, of course, as this entire debate has acknowledged, these two issues are interlinked. I note that that Blueprint Coalition report stressed what the Minister might like to call nature-based solutions—the need to accelerate tree planting,
“peatland restoration, green spaces and other green infrastructure”.
Those are all things that the Government say that they plan to support, but the delivery vehicle that is most effective and cost effective will very often need to be local authorities.
This is also happening in the context of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. The Green Alliance highlighted the need for training to ensure that, in local government, climate skills are embedded in all roles and there is widespread access to specialist skills, as the Committee on Climate Change recommended. That Green Alliance report found that many local authority representatives were terribly concerned that this was not available and that instead they were forced to rely on consultants—which, again, was a far more expensive option. This amendment is not only essential but could save money. How could the Government possibly oppose that?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I rise to speak to this amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. This is because I agree with them that it is important that local authorities are prepared to deliver the many new duties provided for in this Bill; they will, of course, be key to its success. I am always pleased to follow the energetic noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but more particularly to have my first opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, who is adding a great deal to our proceedings, especially in his knowledge of how things actually work in local government.
The proposers of this amendment appear to want to see a review, three months after the Bill’s passage, of the funding and staffing required and of how additional costs should be covered. I am afraid that I am more impatient; I would like to hear now from my noble friend the Minister how the burdens on local authorities will be dealt with. Will it be through the rate support grant? Will special funding be provided from the Defra budget, and will it be ring-fenced, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked? Does he have a feel for the total likely to be needed, in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds?
Improving skills is probably more important to productivity growth than any other investment we can make. There is already a skills and staffing gap in local government, partly because of the needs of environmental measures in planning and building, at which the Built Environment Committee, on which I sit, is already looking. The Bill will make that gap a great deal bigger.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, mentioned ecologists and recycling but there is, of course, a broader challenge. Competition for talent, from Natural England and others, as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, said, is also likely to cause problems. What is the plan for gearing up the skills we need in local government in preparation for their new duties? Also to return to an earlier theme of mine, how will this be communicated?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.
Whether local authorities were likely to be prepared for the implications of this Bill for their operations was discussed briefly on Monday evening, when the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, opened a long debate which featured mainly the need for more trees. Although the debate was long and extensive, I fear that the issue of whether local authorities were likely to be properly resourced to carry out their functions as described in the Bill was somewhat lost in the debate about trees and tree planting, vital though that was. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and co-signed by the noble Lord, now stands alone and we have an opportunity to debate to what extent local authorities can fulfil the expectations that the Bill places on them. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked exactly how the money will be provided and just how much will be required. These are vital questions.
The last 16 months have not been great for local authorities. Their councillors have been meeting for the most part remotely, and this has meant that the public have not had the same access to their decision-making as previously. Their staff have been redeployed to other tasks: in some cases, it was making up food parcels for families and children; in others, it was helping to staff vaccination centres and adjoining car parks. Others were ensuring that the homeless were removed from the streets to places where there was shelter and they were safe from Covid. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, congratulated local authorities on the excellent work they do. I echo that.
Now that councils are beginning to return to some form of “normal” working, whatever normal is for each council, the Environment Bill, long trailed and expected, is about to pass into law with requirements for local authorities to step up to the mark. They are, of course, willing to do this, as reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. It is their ethos that public service should come first. However, a lot is expected of them.
Local authorities are expected to create local nature strategies. Due to previous funding cuts, it is estimated that only one in four currently has access to an in-house ecologist, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Khan. If those ecologists are spread evenly around the country, those without may be able to buy into the expertise of their neighbours. But such even distribution is rare, and it is likely that some areas of the country will have no access to an in-house ecologist. I can see a burgeoning market here for budding ecology entrepreneurs.
The Environmental Audit Committee’s recent report, Biodiversity in the UK: Bloom or Bust?, indicated that a lack of funding along with a shortage of ecologists meant that some authorities would struggle to produce their biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery strategies, as the noble Lord, Lord Khan, indicated. Similarly, on the changing rules around waste measures, many authorities do not currently have separated recyclable waste collections. Others may have it in place but are seeking to widen the variety of items collected, and this will place added burdens on already stretched budgets. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, raised the issue of long-term waste collection contracts.
As the Minister will know, the minimisation of waste is very dear to my heart. Local authorities which collect all their recyclables together are likely to be those that bundle all their plastics together and despatch them to what they believe are licensed disposal plants. As debated earlier, this is often not the case. I have spoken at waste conferences on the need to have a single-pass vehicle that collects the majority of recyclables—plastic, glass, paper, cardboard, aluminium cans—which the householder will have separated and put out in different containers for collection. This has not always been welcome, as the cost of changing collection vehicles is often prohibitive. The public want to play their part and local authorities want to play their part, but adequate funding for them to be able to make the change is vital for success. Those authorities which have been collecting separated waste for some years are in a much better position to ensure that each item of waste is recycled appropriately or disposed of safely and to maximum benefit.
All this requires funding, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made clear, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised possible local authority bankruptcies. The noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, has given an excellent exposé of just what the impact could be for hard-pressed local authorities. I fully support his bid to ensure that the Government properly assess the effect of the measures in the Bill on both the staffing and the financial resources of local authorities at this critical moment. We all want the measures in the Bill to succeed, but this will not happen unless sufficient funding is provided. I know the Minister is keen for the Bill to be a success, and I look forward to his positive response to this amendment, which supports local authorities to play their part.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her Amendment 293C and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, for introducing it. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are proactively involving local authorities in preparations for implementing the measures in the Environment Bill. Local authorities are key partners for delivering the Bill, from introducing consistent recycling collections and delivering biodiversity net gain to improving air quality. We have worked closely with local authorities in designing the Bill’s provisions and are committed to engaging with them as we implement it, seeking to maximise effective delivery and minimise unnecessary burdens. We have held over 15 public consultations, which provided a critical perspective on the Bill’s measures and received extensive contributions from stakeholders across all parts of society, including local authorities. These were on key measures such as consistency in household and business recycling in England, updating planning requirements with biodiversity net gain and introduction of a deposit return scheme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The responses to those consultations have been used to develop the Bill’s measures as well as informing upcoming secondary legislation, with further detailed consultation on measures to come.
Noble Lords will know that the Government have committed to funding in full all new burdens on local authorities arising from the Bill. We are working closely with MHCLG to ensure that funding for local authorities is delivered sensibly. We have to be conscious of the established process for funding local authorities through the local government finance settlement. The settlement is unring-fenced to ensure that local areas can prioritise based on their own understanding of the needs of their local communities. However, as I said, we have committed to fully fund all new burdens on local authorities through the Bill. This is in addition to making sure that the costs of protecting the environment, which currently fall on many local authorities and consumers, are shifted to those who may damage it, including through extended producer responsibility or biodiversity net gain. When we look at the global figure, there is of course increased expenditure, which we will cover, but there are also various sources of income.
We have also built in appropriate transition periods. For example, the Government have built in a two-year transition period post Royal Assent for local authorities on biodiversity net gain. The Government are also providing training to local authorities on biodiversity net gain and are in close dialogue on how local nature recovery strategies will be delivered, including through recent pilots. In answer to a number of questions raised, including by the noble Lord, Lord Khan, I say that the Government have committed to providing training and guidance to local authorities on, for example, biodiversity net gain. We have been working closely with local government organisations on implementation matters. Furthermore, we have funded a multi-year project delivered by the Planning Advisory Service for a suite of training and guidance resources for local authorities to ensure that they have access to the right skills and knowledge to implement biodiversity net gain.
I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness who tabled the amendment and others of how we have already worked closely with local authorities on these measures and how we will work going forward. We believe that setting an arbitrary date for reviewing the preparedness of local government to deliver on the Bill, which would not reflect the different timelines for the respective measures, is unnecessary, but this is an important issue and the noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise it. I hope I have reassured her and that I can persuade her to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the mover, the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this very informative debate and for the many thoughtful contributions across the House.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that the amendment will allow the weight on a local authority to be eased. She talked about councils coming under huge pressure, as they have done during the pandemic. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, also mentioned how brilliantly local authorities performed in providing support to communities during the difficult, challenging times of the pandemic.
In her excellent, detailed and comprehensive contribution, my noble friend Lady Quin talked about having consultations with various councils and through them finding out the important shortfalls in skills that must be addressed, and about local authorities being concerned about not having the necessary resources and wanting clear guidance. Goals must be set that are deliverable and financially possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was very succinct in saying that the amendment would help laws to be carried out properly at local level. As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, talked about the difficulties and challenges of 25 councils that are looking at bankruptcy. Funding is a huge concern and the point was made very eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I thank the Minister for his reply to that, but there was a lack of discussion about the different funding streams that the noble Baroness talked about, in particular looking at whether this would be a local government settlement grant increase or whether Defra would have a funding stream. I thank the Minister also for his reassuring commitment to work closely with and consult local authorities and not to overburden them, as well to training and guidance—but there was no detail on funding streams to local government.
I welcome the very important points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in relation to stepping up to the mark. From her contribution I took away the fact that there are huge expectations on local authorities to deliver on the important outcomes of this Bill. We expect the Government to ensure that they recognise the challenge that lies ahead. The noble Baroness mentioned the great work of local authorities during the pandemic. When I was a local council cabinet member for finance and introduced iPads, getting rid of papers and documents in meetings, people looked at me in a very bizarre manner, as if to say, “What is he talking about? Why are we doing this?” I got a lot of distress, but after the pandemic and 16 months of being Teamsed out and Zoomed out, they were very appreciative of innovation. We would like local authorities to continue being innovative but also for it to be recognised that to be innovative and creative they need support and guidance.
For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I am sure that these arguments will come up again.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 293E. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Schedule 20: Amendment of REACH legislation
Amendment 293E
Lord Whitty
“(1A) Regulations made under this paragraph must not reduce the protections or standards of any Article or Annex of the REACH Regulation.(1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1A), the Secretary of State may by regulations seek to maintain or exceed regulatory parity with any new or amended regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the regulation of chemicals. (1C) The Secretary of State must prepare an annual report explaining each decision not to align with new EU restrictions and authorisations on chemicals, and Candidate List Substances of Very High Concern.(1D) The annual report must include an assessment of the environmental, economic and public health impact of any such decisions.(1E) An annual report must be laid before Parliament before the end of the 3 month period beginning immediately after the last day of the period to which the report relates.(1F) The Secretary of State must publish annual reports laid before Parliament under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lower standards that are in place currently while enabling them to easily meet or exceed new EU chemical protections and standards. It would also place an obligation on the Government to transparently justify any decision to deviate from EU control on chemicals.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this amendment amends the rather confusing Schedule 20 and would clearly and unambiguously provide that UK standards for the production and use of chemicals would not regress or fall below European standards without a clear and transparent justification from Ministers for so doing being presented to Parliament and reported on annually.
At present, the default position is that, if the European regulatory position on chemicals changes or, even more importantly, deals with new chemicals which have not previously been covered, the UK would remain where we are—in practice, at the end of the transition period. This is going back a bit. Those with long memories might cast their minds back to the immediate post-Brexit vote period and the 2016 EU withdrawal Bill. Some noble Lords might remember that, during the lengthy proceedings on that Bill, I took a particular interest in the future relationship between this country and the executive agencies of the European Union, of which there were about 40, one of them being the European Chemicals Agency.
That was one of the most important of them, for a number of reasons. The chemicals industry was and is the most integrated of all European industries, in its production of chemicals across borders, in its trading of those chemicals, which many downstream industries and firms use, and because thousands more businesses and consumers use the products of this integrated pan-European and international process. Those thousands of chemicals have a potentially dangerous impact on humans, animals, nature and the environment, and all of them were subject to registration, authorisation, testing for toxicity and other potential harms, and restrictions on use by the European Chemicals Agency—a process that was respected by the industry, by scientists and intellectual property lawyers and, in the main, by campaigning environmental and medical groups across Europe.
We could have negotiated a special arrangement with ECHA, as Norway did. Indeed, the then Prime Minister, Mrs May, in what was at that time seen as her definitive Mansion House speech, singled out the European Chemicals Agency as one of only three EU agencies with which her Government considered that we needed to maintain an involvement. The rationale for retaining that involvement was clear to much of the industry: for chemical registration and authorisation, to do anything else would mean duplication for industry and user businesses.
However, when his regime took over, the present Prime Minister apparently decided that duplication was just what we wanted, so instead we established a parallel REACH process, put under the control of the HSE. Producers of chemicals, and also importers, exporters and manufacturers of downstream products, and retailers and users of those products, have to check registration with UK REACH administration, even if it has already been cleared by REACH in Europe. Complications abound—of paperwork, legal access, and intellectual property rights—and so does the possibility, debated earlier in Committee, of duplication of testing, on animals in particular.
At the time of the withdrawal Bill, I and others sought assurances that the HSE would have the expertise, the staffing levels, the money, and the resources, to conduct this duplicate REACH process. Ministers gave those assurances nonchalantly, but in the few months of operation since the end of the transition period, those assurances have appeared to be hollow. We have not been able to match the European Chemicals Agency system. The UK has already fallen behind on new registrations and restrictions of substances of very high concern: those chemical products which have intrinsic hazards—carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic et cetera—to humans.
Since the end of transition, ECHA has dealt with eight new substances of very high concern, whereas the UK parallel system has dealt with only two. Therefore, the UK has not added conditions for six of those substances, which may well have significant conditions on their use. These include three flame retardants and a toxic endocrine disrupter. Thus, we have ended up in a position where we have de facto divergence through institutional slowness, which in practice means that UK standards already not only diverge from but are lower than EU standards.
I recognise that it will take time for the new UK system to get fully into gear. Hopefully, the HSE process will speed up, but the key issue—and the basis for this amendment—is not the rights and wrongs of duplication, but divergence, and of the UK adopting or failing to adopt standards that, in practice, means lower standards in the UK; whereas we were constantly assured during the passage of the withdrawal Bill that our standards would be at least as good as EU standards. At present, as I say, we are seeing some divergence by default. Now I accept that, in future, there may well be good reasons for divergence, but if the protection and conditions are less in the UK than in Europe, divergence needs to be clearly justified publicly and scientifically to Parliament and beyond.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for it guards against lowered standards while still enabling the United Kingdom to do much better. It also requires transparency on any change from EU standards on the control of chemicals.
No one would argue in favour of slippage of standards. However, many of us believe that, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has just outlined, for technical and other reasons such standards can slip very easily all the same.
This amendment prevents that. Yet its expedients should not wrongly be viewed as a restrictive measure of conformity to the EU, of which we are no longer a member, but instead as an opportunity for the United Kingdom to take a lead internationally by setting even higher standards of our own.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, with another message on the need for environmental protection. I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 293E and thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for moving it and for his long-term concentration on the issue.
We are yet again in a non-regression cause—I feel something like a broken record. We were promised non-regression; we heard it again and again through the whole Brexit debate and subsequently. We need to consider this amendment in the light of the debate that was conducted publicly in February and March, when the industry initially proposed a light-touch registration of chemicals that were already on the EU REACH registration at the end of the transition period, effectively allowing a rubber stamp on those already in use. In response to that, environmental groups warned that this would contravene the principles that are apparently contained in the Environment Bill, which commits to maintaining the “no data, no market access” principle on which REACH is based.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made some very important points about how the EU is progressing with investigations of the impacts of cocktails of chemicals—something that is highly relevant to Amendment 152, which we debated some weeks ago, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the impact of pesticide applications near homes.
If we do not have full data on each and every chemical, the Health and Safety Executive will simply not be able to do its job and will be at risk of legal challenge. The data being out there somewhere is not enough. Regulation is an ongoing and continuous process that requires access to high-quality, up-to-date data. I note the response in March from Breast Cancer UK, which said that such an action would weaken the Health and Safety Executive’s ability to protect public health.
This is my final contribution to this very long Committee, and indeed the final contribution of the Green group. So, if the Committee will allow me a couple more sentences, I will say that it has been a long and fruitful haul, at least in the airing of issues and the identification of many flaws in the Bill. That is not surprising, perhaps, as this is such a fast-moving area and we have been dealing with a Bill so long in gestation. We have given the noble Lord the Minister a busy Recess in terms of meetings and, we hope, the drafting of government amendments reflecting our debates. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, back at Second Reading, said that this was the Green Party’s Bill. We have done our best to make a positive, constructive contribution to this Bill, and we hope that we will see some results. I will see all noble Lords in September.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is about the REACH directive, which brings us back to the vexed issue of Brexit and how we take things forward independently. This is a part of the Bill—especially the wide enabling provisions for regulation tucked away in Schedule 20—that really shocked me. On this occasion, I do not agree with most of the noble Lord’s amendment.
My criticism is not to do with animal welfare and testing, which was dealt with at an earlier sitting. My concern is that the REACH directive—short for the grand-sounding registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—has had a damaging effect on our industrial base since its implementation in June 2007. The directive has had a burdensome impact on most companies, including the most responsible. It applies to all chemical substances, not only those used in industrial processes, but also to those used in our day-to-day lives, such as cleaning products, paints, clothes, furniture and electrical appliances. If you handle any chemicals in your industrial or professional capacity, you may have responsibilities. REACH is compliance heavy and has made many UK companies operate in very different way. Again, the Roman system of law prevails over a more objective-based common-law approach. We have apparently had that in spades with the dual system that has been adopted since Brexit, described by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
I remember visiting an excellent small paint company in the Midlands, serving the advanced engineering industry, when I was a Minister. They were tearing their hair out over rules that were slowly bankrupting them, partly because of the heavy-handed way in which the big multinationals they supplied were loading all these new EU costs and responsibilities on to them. I raised their concerns with Defra, but to no avail. The attitude that the environment must take precedence over every other concern lives on, and that is unbalanced. Companies established outside the EU have not been bound by the obligations of REACH, even when exporting to the EU. Registration and everything else is the responsibility of the importer, and that makes life easier for third-country competitors. That sort of unfair, burdensome regulation helped to fuel Brexit.
What amazes me is that, now that we have left the EU, I have heard nothing about steps to help our industrial sector on this sort of detailed regulation; indeed, very much the reverse, as today’s debate suggests. Will the Government agree to a business-led review of REACH with a view to using the new powers to improve productivity and competitiveness without, of course, undermining essential environmental safeguards? Although we come at this from a different direction, this might actually appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, because it could be a constructive way of getting rid of the problem that we have. The grace-period provisions in REACH that the Minister alluded to on 28 June are not enough and are probably no good to the innovators and new entrants that we need in our engineering industries. The Minister might become very popular with small businesses in the Midlands and, indeed, in the red-wall industrial areas, if she agreed to a new post-Brexit review of this burdensome regime and how we can make it better.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be taking part in this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on his knowledgeable introduction to this amendment, which seeks to provide safeguards for the vital REACH section of the Environment Bill. Many of his comments will be reinforced by my contribution.
During the run-up to Brexit, my noble friend Lord Fox and I had a meeting down at Marsham Street with the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, and Defra officials on the implications for the UK of not transferring the REACH regulations from EU to UK law. We were assured by officials that a better regime covering Great Britain—excluding Northern Ireland, which would remain within EU REACH—would be established. I regret to say that we were not convinced, and I am still not convinced. This landmark Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to alter the UK REACH system. This could cause deregulation and instability. Despite reassurances that the UK would not diverge from EU protections just for the sake of it, divergence looks set to widen over time.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has already referred to that fact. During the debate on the use of pesticides, reference was made to the mixture of different chemicals and the cumulative effect that these have, which far outweighs the damage that the individual chemicals do on their own. The EU chemicals strategy has powers to restrict the cocktail effect, in order to reduce the exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Can the Minister assure us that the Secretary of State is not likely to relax the UK REACH standards, which could enable exposure to this risk?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I offer our strong support to Amendment 293E in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. I thank my noble friend for his detailed and knowledgeable introduction, explaining why it is so important we do not have non-regression in chemicals industry regulation. Plans as to how the Government intend to regulate the UK chemicals sector following Brexit and our departure from EU REACH have been of significant concern for the UK chemicals industry for some time. This amendment would remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lower current standards, while enabling them to easily meet or exceed new EU protections and standards. It would also oblige the Government to transparently justify any decision to deviate from EU control on chemicals—noble Lords have talked about the importance of transparency.
Concerns were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that provisions in the Bill give the Secretary of State the power to alter the UK REACH system, including through deregulation, which is causing instability. Concerns have also been raised about the potential for a reduction in protections and standards. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, also talked about the potential for a toxic mix of chemicals, as we have heard in other debates during the progress of the Bill. The UK is already falling behind EU protections. Divergence is set to widen over time, despite assurances that the UK would not diverge for the sake of it, and this brings with it considerable associated economic and political costs. I would be interested to hear from the Minister the Government’s perspective on this divergence and how they will manage it. The current regulatory processes for GB controls lack transparency and do not match the pace of EU action. They also do not appear to consider or attempt to mitigate the effects of divergence. My noble friend Lord Whitty mentioned the issue of new chemicals in particular, and how that is being managed.
Going back to our negotiations on Brexit, it was hugely disappointing that the Government ruled out what we believe would have been the best outcome for both the environment and human health, as well as for industry: for the UK to remain within the world’s most advanced system for regulating hazardous chemicals, the EU REACH system. The decision instead to set up UK REACH will substantially increase costs and bureaucracy for UK companies, while bringing real danger through the reduction in protection for the public, workers and the environment from hazardous chemicals. But we are where we are, and the priority now has to be for UK REACH to be the best it can possibly be.
The provisions in the Bill present an opportunity to ensure that UK REACH reflects available scientific evidence and allows for a regulatory environment which is fit for purpose. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said we now have an opportunity for higher standards, and I agree with him. Schedule 20 gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to amend the UK REACH regulation and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008. Such amendments would have to be in line with Article 1 of REACH, which outlines its aim and scope. Several provisions are protected from modification by SI under these powers. However, we are concerned about granting the Secretary of State such a sweeping power to amend the main UK REACH text, which could then be used to reduce the level of protection for the public and the environment from hazardous chemicals. My noble friend Lord Whitty talked about the potential for huge damage if we do not manage our chemicals industry correctly.
There are many concerns from industry about access to data and divergent sources of data: different data can mean different decisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, talked about a lack of data undermining HSE’s ability to do its job properly. Now that we have left the EU, the UK does not have access to the same EU databases and the 98,000-plus dossiers of commercially sensitive safety and technical data for more than 22,000 substances. I have spoken many times in this House and the other place about my concerns about the risk of duplicate animal testing, and I know other noble Lords are concerned about this. We have had assurances from the Government, but no real explanation about how it is going to be prevented. When scientists and technical review panels cannot see the same scientific data and cannot discuss this data with scientific counterparts in the EU, inevitably we could find that different decisions are being drawn.
My noble friend Lord Whitty talked about his concerns around divergence by default. In a divergent regulatory system, the Government must be careful to avoid any lowering of our current high standard of environmental protections and increasing risk to public health, solely for the purpose of quick, short-term economic international trade wins or rapidly rolled-out innovations. I ask the Minister for her reassurance that this will not happen. Furthermore, a divergent chemicals regulatory system in the UK will bring additional cost burdens to business and, if standards are lowered or untrusted, will bring consequences to the ability to trade products with the EU. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about the burdens on business if we do not get this right. We have to put safety first and consider the impact on the environment.
Significant divergence giving the UK a competitive advantage risks triggering rebalancing measures by the EU, such as retaliatory tariffs, under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Remaining closely aligned with EU REACH would ensure that UK consumers and the environment continue to benefit from the EU’s relatively high protections as they continue to improve, and would also avoid unscrupulous manufacturers dumping products in the UK that fail to meet EU standards. The amendment we have been debating would provide important benefits and protections from damaging divergence that could lower standards. I urge the Minister to consider the benefits of supporting it.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his Amendment 293E. As I have outlined in previous groups, the Bill will enable the Government to update our REACH regulation to ensure it keeps pace with the latest scientific developments and to prevent our chemicals regulation becoming frozen. I start by reassuring the noble Lord that there are already several safeguards included in the Bill. Changes to the REACH regulation have to be consistent with Article 1 of that regulation, including ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. The Secretary of State must publish an explanation of why he considers that to be the case before making any changes.
I know the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was particularly concerned about the powers that the Secretary of State is taking to amend this. An ability to make supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provisions is a standard provision in legislation. The aim is to make sure that we avoid inconsistencies, discrepancies or overlaps developing in the statute book, but it would not enable us to make wholesale changes to the protected provisions. To take an example, Article 35 of the REACH regulation is a protected provision which gives workers the right to access information that their employer receives under other provisions of the REACH regulation, Articles 31 and 32, concerning a chemical substance or mixture they use or may be exposed to. If we were to extend the scope of those other REACH provisions to also cover information about substances in articles, we would want to amend Article 35 to reflect these changes.
I should say at the outset that both the UK and the EU recognise that EU REACH is part of the single market. Access to EU REACH or associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency are tied to the single market, and the EU insisted on this. The Government have already made it clear that we would not accept being subject to the European Court of Justice, and associate membership would mean just that. However, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement still provides for co-operation between the EU and UK chemicals agencies.
I should also stay at this juncture that, while I take the point about the larger resources that EU REACH has, Defra has asked HSE to work on two restrictions to date. I know that, normally, the EU would probably do five or six a year, but we have a significant time advantage: even with the Secretary of State asking the devolved authorities’ consent, we still have a speed advantage because we do not have to get agreement from 27 countries, which, in chemicals terms, can actually take many years.
We have also provided over 20 provisions relating to the fundamental principles of REACH, listed in the table in paragraph 6 of Schedule 20. They include: the “no data, no market” principle; the last resort principle on animal testing; the aim of progressively replacing substances of very high concern through the authorisation process; the effect of restrictions; the importance of communicating information to the public on the risks of substances; and various provisions to ensure that UK REACH will be properly transparent.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I rise to ask two questions, which I think have been answered. One is about microplastics and how they are covered by REACH; in writing to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister could copy me in too. They are a genuine area of concern. Secondly, I want to pursue the idea of a business-led review of REACH, not to undermine environmental standards but to make sure that the nonsenses of this area are tackled. I would be very happy to talk to my noble friend about that.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am very happy to take both issues back to the department.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which attempted to reassure me—I am not sure it did entirely. I also record my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lady Hayman for their support for this amendment.
The Minister attempted to be reassuring, but the wording of Schedule 20, introduced by Clause 133, does not give the cast-iron guarantee that she appeared to be giving. I appreciate that there are other developments in this Bill and elsewhere which would restrict her or any future Minister’s freedom of manoeuvre in this area, but an explicit requirement to report to Parliament if they intend not to follow the EU level of protection is important. I do not think that the combination of Schedule 20 and the text of the Bill delivers that. I ask the Minister to get her officials to have another look at it, but if she were forthcoming with an alternative amendment herself I would certainly have a look at that.
Chemicals have been a great boon to mankind. The chemicals industry is one of our great successes in industrial life, but it has also been shown to be quite damaging in a number of serious respects. The misuse of chemicals, the wrong disposal of chemicals, the wrong combination of chemicals and the wrong application of chemicals to humans, products, the landscape and the environment have caused a large number of problems. It was therefore important that Europe, when we were members, developed an effective system of regulating chemicals; effectively, if there was no data indicating their safe use, they would not be given access to the market. That is the basis of REACH.
I was interested in the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I know that she reflects serious concerns from parts of industry. On this one, I think she is slightly out of date. It was certainly true when REACH started to be established, from 2007 roughly, that there was considerable concern throughout the chemicals industry that the regulations and the data required would be too burdensome, prevent innovation and cause difficulties for the sector. That concern continued for a number of years, but two things have happened since.
First, public concern about the impact of chemicals on human health and the environment has seriously grown, and so likewise has the industry’s recognition that it needs a robust system of regulation to which it can be party. Secondly, the REACH system has bedded in across Europe. As I said in my speech, we must recognise that the European chemicals industry is pretty pan-national, in terms of both large companies and small companies with which they have a supply chain or a contractual arrangement, as well as importers and exporters. There is a lot that the industry has had to get used to, some of which it did not initially like, but it has now proved a rather more effective system of regulation than some others in the armoury of the European Commission, I would argue, and certainly much more accepted, both scientifically and by those who are concerned, and by the industry itself. It was therefore a bit of a surprise to hear the noble Baroness express such concerns—there may be some companies still upset by it, but in general it has been accepted.
I also think that the decision to duplicate on the same basis, in effect, as the European system has caused some frustration to industry but it is that duplication, rather than the essence of the European regulatory structure and regulatory process, that is causing any irritation now. That may also settle down. What I hope for in terms of those who are looking for protection from the impact of chemicals is that the HSE, Defra, the Environment Agency and everybody else who is involved in this area develop a speed of reaction that matches that of Europe. If they do that, then duplication ceases to be quite so important.
At the moment, that is not the case and we therefore potentially have three different sorts of divergence. We have a divergence because Europe has moved on but we have not got round to doing it—I call that divergence by default. We have divergence because the UK has decided explicitly that it wants a rather different system that would be less restrictive than Europe. We have divergence because the UK has decided that it wants better regulation. Both of those are possible under my amendment but they have to be explained to Parliament and justifiable in the terms of the original REACH proceeding. I do not think that the wording of Schedule 20 gives that degree of certainty. We need more clarity, not less. We need more understanding of what we are trying to protect in the chemicals regulation in terms of its impact on human health, animal health and welfare, wildlife and everything else this Bill is concerned with before we try to change the system significantly.
Therefore, this is an attempt to ensure that there is no regression, that any divergence is beneficial and that it is clearly explained to Parliament. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others who might oppose this amendment recognise the importance of that. However, I take comfort from the support around the rest of the Committee for at least the principle of this amendment. In the meantime, I will withdraw it and we will, no doubt, come back to something like this on Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 297A. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 135: Regulations
Amendment 297A
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(10) Except for regulations under this section, regulations under this Act expire after the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute a later date for the purposes of subsection (10).(12) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes or areas. (13) Before exercising the power under subsection (11), the Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of the regulations to which the power relates and conduct an assessment of the costs of the policy or provision relative to the benefits, having regard to a broad range of factors, including—(a) effect on economic growth;(b) costs to industry, in particular small and medium-sized businesses;(c) social impact.(14) Regulations under subsection (11) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets a sunset provision after five years for regulations made under the Bill, including those relating to targets. If the Government wishes to renew regulations, it must conduct a cost-benefit analysis first.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be introducing this final group and to have the support of my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lady Noakes. It is fair to say that we have been troubled by the sheer scale of this Bill and the new duties and responsibilities within it. It is clear that we are not going to be able to get all the provisions right and that the regulations made under the Bill are in many cases still being developed.
There is generous use of the affirmative procedure in the making of these regulations, for which the Government have been praised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. However, the fact is that Parliament almost never secures changes to an affirmative resolution SI, so it is mainly a debating trigger. It is no substitute for knowing what will be in subordinate legislation and knowing it at the time that powers are granted in an enabling Bill. The power grab by bureaucrats is exactly what critics used to blame the European Union for when it brought in directives, but ironically it was more transparent about its plans and there was a well-understood process of both public consultation and scrutiny of detail in the European Parliament.
I should add that when I used to be responsible for Bills, parliamentary counsel wanted details of what the powers would be used for. They do not seem to be as firm as they used to be, which is a loss of democracy.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness in this grouping. I am not sure why we have been grouped together but I think it will work well and I am sure that her advice on some of the things I am going to say will be welcome, if not during the debate, maybe later on.
This is a probing amendment. I first need to tell the House that I am not opposing the clause but this is the only way I could find, with the help of the excellent clerks, of coming up with something that enabled me to start a debate on something that I think is quite important in a Bill that is as wide as this and, of course, includes issues, as the noble Baroness said, about the Prince of Wales’s support for small farmers. I certainly welcome that. He is right.
When it comes to the Crown, however, it gets a bit more complicated. I think noble Lords will know that the Crown normally comprises four elements: the Crown itself and its public element; the Duchy of Lancaster; the Government, or various government departments; and the Duchy of Cornwall. It is clear to me that the Duchy of Cornwall is different, as it claims to be in the private sector, which means that one ought to look at the role of the Duchy of Cornwall and the benefits that it gets rather separately from the other three parts of the Crown. As the noble Baroness said, of course, one issue is the Crown exemption clauses, which sometimes avoid the Crown needing to comply with legislation. I shall come back to that. I therefore have a number of questions for the Minister, which I suspect he will not be able to answer today, but I would be very pleased if he could write to me on them.
As I said, there are three categories of Act in relation to the Crown. I am very grateful to a good friend of mine, Dr John Kirkhope, who is a real expert on this. He has helped me with what I am about to say, because it is quite complicated. First, there are Acts in which the Crown enjoys Crown immunity, which includes leasehold reform Acts, income tax Acts, et cetera. Secondly, there are Acts which bind the Crown, but if an Act does not say that it binds the Crown, it does not. Then there is a third category: those Acts that bind the Crown but where there is no criminal sanction if the Crown is in breach; these have what are called Crown exemption clauses. Of course, this brings me back to the Duchy.
Therefore, I have a number of questions on parts of the Bill and the effect it may have on the different parts of the Crown—be they the Duchy of Cornwall or the other parts—which I want to pose to the Minister. I start with Clause 30(3), which relates to the OEP and defines “public authority”. It appears that the definition does not include the Crown, as defined in Schedule 18. Does that mean that the power of the OEP does not extend to the Crown? In particular, does it extend to the Duchy of Cornwall? Next, does Clause 49, in Part 3, apply to the Crown? In other words, if any Crown body is found to have dumped waste, would it be subject to the various sanctions outlined? Again, which Crown bodies are we referring to?
I note many references to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, but if noble Lords refer to Section 76 of that Act, in relation to the Isles of Scilly, or, more particularly, Section 159, it includes Crown exemption clauses. This means that there is no criminal sanction if the Crown—which includes the Duchy of Cornwall, where I live—is in breach.
I can go on. Another example is Schedule 21 to the Environment Act 1995, which includes a similar provision, to which reference is made in Clause 63 of this Bill. I also refer to Section 77 of the Water Industries Act 1991, Section 221 of which provides Crown exemption. I will not go through any more of these references in the Bill, but I am sure noble Lords have got the picture. Therefore, my question is: to what extent do all these references to other pieces of past legislation bind the Crown? Do they bind all parts of the Crown, or do they bind only the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and government departments, and not the Duchy of Cornwall?
Before putting down this question of whether the clause should stand part, I did think of trying to draft some amendments on this, but it is incredibly complicated. I would really welcome the opportunity to sit down with the Minister and his officials to see whether there could be some response which would clarify the Crown exemption clauses and where the Crown is and is not included. One suggestion would be to table an amendment which says that the Act binds the Duchy of Cornwall; that is another option. It is very complicated, but it is very important that the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall are recognised for what they are and whether they should be included or not, and whether there need to be even some changes to previous legislation to clarify this, otherwise there is a danger that the Bill—which has some really good parts; we have discussed much of it over the last eight sessions—could get even more complicated. I trust that is helpful to the Minister and look forward to his response in due course.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who always raises such interesting points. I agree with him that it is rather odd that his clause stand part debate has been grouped with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment. I will concentrate my remarks on my noble friend’s amendment, to which I have added my name. I have not hitherto taken part on this Bill, though I have sat in a few times and read quite a bit of the record of proceedings in Hansard, but my noble friend’s Amendment 297A has tempted me in from the sidelines.
Bills such as this one, which are full of good intent and focused on issues that some are passionate about, often get very little scrutiny of their costs and the consequences of actions taken under them. At Second Reading there was very little focus on that. There were just two shining exceptions. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, emphasised the need for government policies to be prioritised and to ensure that actions taken under the Bill did not, for example, harm economic growth policies. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, drew attention to the fact that actions taken in the interests of the environment involve trade-offs and that there was a lacuna in the Bill in respect of considering economic impacts when setting targets under it. I know that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has several times raised the issue of the costs and benefits of the Bill in Committee, and I am glad that she has tabled Amendment 297A to ensure that regulations made under the Bill’s powers are rigorously assessed.
My noble friend’s amendment gives the Government the benefit of the doubt for the first regulations laid under what will be an Act, and I know that my noble friend the Minister has said several times during Committee that full impact statements will be prepared for each of those regulations. The trouble is that impact statements are narrowly defined by the Cabinet Office and suffer from many defects. They commonly understate costs or do not cast the net wide enough to capture all of them. The analysis is typically based on identified persons or bodies, or groups of them, and hence fails to capture whole-system impacts, such as macroeconomic impacts. Impact statements often overstate the benefits or take a macro-level calculation of benefit and use that to frank all the micro-level actions, as the impact statement for this Bill does in respect of a global assessment of potential biodiversity gain. They are also generally optimistic about things such as new opportunities for businesses to innovate. The huge impact statement issued for this Bill suffers from most of these defects and is not decision-useful for assessing its impact.
I very much doubt that the final impact statements for individual regulations will be much better because of these structural deficiencies. The virtue of my noble friend’s amendment is that she allows a five-year period—capable of extension—to gain evidence of the impact of measures. In addition, the amendment calls for a broad evaluation, not a narrow Cabinet Office-style impact assessment, before any regulations are allowed to continue, and it includes the economic impact—on economic growth—and social impact. Concentrating on these would go a long way to remedy the usual deficiencies of impact statements.
My noble friend’s amendment is a modest and proportionate attempt to get some rigour into the parliamentary scrutiny of environmental policy-making, and I hope it will find favour with my noble friend the Minister.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes, whose expertise on these matters is extraordinary, and to support the very important amendment of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This is only the second time I have spoken in Committee, and I will try and keep it brief because I know we are at the end of eight long days.
At Second Reading, I paid particular attention to the issue that some environmental policies do not end up being effective—do not work. Others are worse; they actually produce counterproductive results in environmental and economic terms. This amendment is a way of making sure that this does not happen—at least, not for a long time—that we learn from mistakes, that we put things right and, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe put it, that we have a fail-safe.
I would like to give four short examples of policies that were brought in to help the environment and ended up hurting it in significant and expensive ways. The first was the policy of encouraging us all to buy diesel cars as opposed to petrol cars 20 or so years ago. There is no doubt, if you go back and look at the debates at the time, that this was pushed as an environmental measure, because diesel cars had lower carbon dioxide emissions per mile. It was pushed strongly by big German car manufacturers as a way of encouraging Governments to think they could get a quick win on the environment. Of course, the effect it had was to increase emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulates, which are much more harmful to human health, as well as to the environment.
The second example is the diversion into compact fluorescent light bulbs. Around 10 years ago, incandescent bulbs were banned, and we were all forced to buy compact fluorescent bulbs. This was pushed strongly as an environmental measure by the large manufacturers of compact fluorescent bulbs because they used less electricity to produce a given amount of light. But they were very unsatisfactory in all sorts of ways, including that they did not switch on very fast, gave a pallid light, were very expensive and were toxic for the environment if they broke. Along came a better technology, the LED bulb, which we have all willingly gone out and bought to replace them. It is even more efficient in terms of the environment, even more energy efficient; it is expensive, but not as expensive as compact fluorescent bulbs; and it has easily replaced both the preceding technologies. My point here is that we did not need the diversion into compact fluorescent bulbs. It probably delayed the arrival of LED bulbs. The evidence on that is quite good.
My third example is the fact that we are burning trees in Yorkshire in Drax power station to keep the lights on in Britain. The trees mostly come from North America; we are stealing the lunch of woodpeckers, beetles and other organisms to have electricity in this country. We are subsidising this. We are calling it renewable, because the trees regrow. But they regrow over decades and, even then, if we are continuing with this, we will presumably cut them down again. Doing this does not make any sense, because burning trees produces more carbon dioxide than coal in the production of electricity. About 7% of our electricity came from biomass burning this morning.
My fourth example is one I referred to in my Second Reading speech and is that some environmental policies have encouraged farmers to make peewit-friendly habitat, where lapwings will come and breed. That sounds good from an environmental point of view, but it has recently become clear that if you do that, but do not control crows, foxes and stoats in the area, you will draw in lapwings to what looks like an attractive place to breed, but they will never see any grandchildren, because the success rate of lapwings in these areas is about 0.1 chicks per pair, which is not sustainable. So you are draining the population of lapwings if you do only one part of the policy and not the other.
A similar point was made in an excellent speech by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who talked about the problem of making conservation covenants in perpetuity, then struggling with what to do when we find that we have made a mistake in a conservation covenant and have put in place a policy for a piece of land that is inappropriate and doing more harm than good. That is why it is vital that we apply sunset clauses and cost-benefit analysis to environmental policies. We need a chance to pause and say, “Sorry, chaps. I know you are making a ton of money out of this policy, but it is not helping the environment, so we are going to shunt your gravy train into a siding, because it has failed a cost-benefit analysis”. That is what we should be in the business of doing.
Those who support greater action on the environment ought to be especially welcoming of this amendment, because it is all about finding out what works, what delivers good value for money and what should be ditched because it does not work. If the Minister does not like this amendment, I would be grateful if he could set out how he plans to deal with it the next time we find that an environmental policy foisted on us by lobbyists turns out to be counterproductive for the environment.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Ridley, who gave a fascinating speech. I was much impressed by his four examples of policies that we thought were going to be very good but turned out to be mistakes and had to be changed. I am sure the same will happen with some of the current policies being proposed for the environment and other things that we think, today, are bound to give the right answer when, in 10 or 20 years, some are certain to be counterproductive.
I will not detain the Committee long, but I extend my support to the sensible Amendment 297A in the names of my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Ridley and Lady Noakes. The Bill takes no account of any negative impacts that the environmental targets set may inadvertently cause. As your Lordships are aware, we do not always get everything right. We should pay attention to the proportionality principle, as sensibly proposed by the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform, chaired by my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is the strongest advocate of impact assessments in your Lordships’ House. As was also pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, planting trees in areas that were not historically forests may assist climate change mitigation, but may also harm biodiversity. Similarly, some actions taken to advance environmental targets may have a negative impact on carbon emissions, such as the plastics tax, which is likely to cause a shift from plastic to glass and aluminium bottles—about which I spoke in an earlier debate. For these and other reasons so well explained by my noble friends, I hope the Minister agrees that it is right to include a sunset clause and that the Government should conduct a cost-benefit analysis if they wish to renew these regulations beyond five years after the passage of the Bill.
On the interesting subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whose support on other aspects of the Bill I much appreciate, I am conscious of my oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and of everything His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall does for the environment. I would prefer to remain silent on this matter, but I look forward to hearing how the Crown replies to the noble Lord through my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for this short but quite interesting and illuminating debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, the two matters we are talking about do not really sit happily together, so I will take them in turn.
As we have heard, Amendment 297A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, would set a sunset provision after five years for regulations made under the Bill, including those relating to targets, unless the Government conduct a cost-benefit analysis. She is certainly correct in her assessment of how extensive the Bill is, and of how much work it has been and will continue to be. We understand her concerns about costs and how difficult it can be to assess them accurately, and the fact that the impact assessments are now two years old, which I guess allows me to make the point that it is a shame this important Bill has dragged on for such a long time.
I was interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, had to say about why impact assessments are not always entirely accurate. She knows far more about financial assessments and economic impacts than many noble Lords.
It was quite interesting to hear the different examples from the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, of where policy made in good faith can turn out to be not what we expected and can often need rethinking. I agree that we always need to learn from mistakes.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for his contribution. I shall spend the next few weeks trying to encourage him to be more positive about efforts to try to improve our environment, while accepting that we do not always get everything right.
However, having said all that, much of the Bill will need to be enacted by secondary legislation, there are plenty of areas where there will have to be regular reports back to Parliament on progress, and we obviously also still have Report to look at how we can improve much of the Bill. We believe that there are many opportunities to revisit the Bill’s implementation and its ongoing outcomes, so presently we would not support a sunset clause, but it has been very interesting to look at and discuss it because it has raised interesting issues about how we assess environmental policy as it moves forward.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley has given notice of his intention to oppose Clause 136 standing part of the Bill. I listened carefully to his concerns about Crown exemption clauses. The possibility is not something I was aware of at all, as I am sure many noble Lords were not. I was interested to hear his question about whether the OEP’s powers would extend to the Crown, and would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. If it does not, does that mean that if a Crown body dumps waste, for example—we have been hearing about Southern Water; I am sure that the Crown would never do something like that—it would not be subject to the sanctions outlined?
As my noble friend also asked, to what extent does the Bill bind the Crown? To what extent can sanctions be applied if the Crown acts in breach of any of its provisions? It is another interesting question. I agree with him that it also seems incredibly complicated, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response—or will we be looking at his reply in writing?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for tabling Amendment 297A and for her kind offer of help, which I will convey to colleagues in the department; I hope we will be able to take her up on it. The Government agree that it is imperative that legislation is subject to appropriate review to ensure it remains fit for purpose, and it is important to note that the entire Bill will be subject to the post-legislative scrutiny process.
However—I say this as a fan of sunsetting—I need to highlight that such a broad sunsetting provision in the Bill would be unworkable, as it would cover every regulation-making power in the Bill indiscriminately, and there are parts of it where sunsetting would be seriously problematic. For example, the Government would not wish the regulations providing for the PM2.5 target, the biodiversity net gains site register or the deposit return schemes to be automatically sunsetted. The Bill consists of numerous measures that are designed to drive long-term change, and the measures are too critical to stop after a five-year period. In addition, having regulations that expire after five years would undoubtedly create uncertainty for businesses and local authorities. The long-term targets, for example, have been welcomed by many business groups—for example, the Broadway Initiative and others—because they provide the predictability that businesses need to plan and invest.
I add that the Bill is, I think, exemplary, in that it contains within it, and all the way through it, an ongoing system of monitoring, reporting and evaluation. It requires constant evaluation against, for example, the long-term targets we set, so it should represent a turning point in how environmental policy is both designed and implemented.
I reassure my noble friend that we are working with local authorities to ensure that they are not overwhelmed by implementation—we discussed that in one of our previous debates. We are working to ensure that measures are implemented to sensible timescales to enable local authorities to be prepared. We will provide a range of additional impact assessments, to answer her question, on policies brought about through secondary legislation under the Bill—for example, the new targets delivered through Part 1—and this will cover a wide range of impacts, both economic and environmental.
I acknowledge the intervention by my noble friend Lord Ridley, who made a really important point about the need for good policy. That sounds like an obvious thing to say, but we have got it wrong many times. Four examples are: diesel, light bulbs, trees being grown to feed the monstrous—I probably should not say that; I am not allowed to say that—Drax, and the partial approach towards restoring the lapwing, which has backfired in the way that my noble friend described. He makes a very important point, and we need to get this policy right. But there are mechanisms within the Bill that will keep policymakers—whether me or the next bunch to come along—on our toes, and keep the policies that we are driving through in the Bill under permanent review.
I highlight to noble Lords that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report was hugely complimentary of the Bill and its approach to delegation and regulation. The Government have accepted all its recommendations and will bring government amendments forward at Report to deliver them. We are confident that we have the right procedures in place.
Turning to the completely different subject of Clause 136, this is a standard provision in many Bills, as the noble Lord will know. As a rule, an Act does not bind the Crown unless it does so expressly or by necessary implication. Therefore, the clause puts the matter beyond doubt, clarifying that the Act binds the Crown, subject to subsection (2), which sets out the position where the Act amends or repeals other legislation. If the clause were to be removed, there would be uncertainty as to which of the Bill’s provisions bind the Crown, weakening them and potentially creating legal risk in various circumstances.
The noble Lord asked a number of technical questions, on which I shall have to get back to him in writing, but Clause 30 defines a public authority as
“a person carrying out any function of a public nature”,
subject to a list of exemptions. This captures bodies with statutory powers and duties, so, to the extent that the Duchy of Cornwall or the Crown have any such duties, they will be captured. The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are not exempt from any of the provisions under the Bill; this has been confirmed by the Queen’s and the Prince’s consent—I thank my noble friend very much for her last minute, very useful intervention. I therefore suggest that Clause 136 should stand part of the Bill.
This debate concludes the Committee. It has been a real pleasure to have debated this hugely important, landmark Bill for something like 80 or 90 hours. It has been a marathon and a test of endurance for many of us. I thank each and every noble Lord who contributed. It has been an extraordinarily important discussion.
I pay particular tribute to my counterparts on the opposition parties’ Front Benches—the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Hayman of Ullock, Lady Parminter and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley —for their tireless work on each of our debates over the past few weeks. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bennett, the representatives of the unofficial opposition, the Green Party. Both made some really important contributions throughout the passage of the Bill so far.
Of course, I thank all those who have made valuable contributions to the debate from the Back Benches. I also thank my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist for her support during these debates. She has endured no less than anyone else in this Chamber.
I pay tribute to the clerks and parliamentary staff for their work to make these proceedings possible, especially during late-night debates. I also pay tribute to the many stakeholders, ENGOs, land managers, businesses and local authorities, and everyone else whose expertise has helped to shape so much of what the Bill contains.
I have listened carefully to each and every concern aired throughout Committee. I hope that I have managed to reassure noble Lords on just how important the environment is to both myself and the Government. This is of course not the last debate that we will have on this flagship Bill, as I really think it is, and I look forward to returning for Report after the Summer Recess. In the meantime, my door remains open and I look forward to continuing our discussions.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank noble Lords for an interesting debate and the Minister for his words. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his clause stand part on application to the Crown and the way in which he cleverly used it to seek the clarification he needed on the Duchy of Cornwall. I just want to tell him that there is another complication that he did not mention: the Palace of Westminster and its well-known wildlife.
My noble friend Lady Noakes gave us a laser-like analysis of the impact assessment issue. I agree with her that assessments tend to be too narrow and that there is also a problem of optimism bias. As she said, I am trying to get some modest scrutiny into the process somehow to make us all do a better job. Of course, my noble friend Lord Ridley supported my idea of a fail-safe, with his excellent illustrations of things that we try to do to save the environment which are actually mistaken—the most obvious example of which is the diesel car.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard spoke about the precautionary principle, but he also brought out well the tension between different environmental measures, which will always be an issue. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her support on costs and learning from mistakes, which is something I have been devoted to all my life. I thought that there was a little door open there.
My noble friend the Minister rightly pointed to the constant process of evaluation that is provided for in this Bill, but I am not sure that we in Parliament get much of a look-in. That was one of the considerations behind the amendment I moved for debate today.
I believe that we need to have a clause that provides for more review and, in some cases, a pause. I also believe that sunsetting might be able to play a role. However, I look forward to helping my noble friend the Minister to find a way forward, if that is possible, between now and Report.
My noble friend the Minister has elegantly and delightfully thanked everybody but, as this is the last group, I thank him, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield and the Bill team for their sterling work and unfailing courtesy. I look forward to Report after a refreshing summer break. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Clause 138, page 123, line 22.
“(ab) sections 16 to 18 (policy statement on environmental principles) extend to England and Wales and Scotland;”Member’s explanatory statement
See Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Clause 18, page 11, line 26.
“(a) the amendments made by Schedule (Biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects) (biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects) have the same extent as the provisions amended, and(b) ”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for the extent, as a matter of law, of Lord Goldsmith’s proposed new Schedule relating to biodiversity gain (which applies only in relation to development in England and the English marine area).
“(ia) section (storm overflows) (storm overflows),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the new Clause relating to storm overflows to come into force two months after Royal Assent.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
That concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. The House will now resume.
Armed Forces Bill
Wednesday 14th July 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 July 2021 - (13 Jul 2021)