Westminster Hall

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 15 November 2022

[Ian Paisley in the Chair]

Fracking: Local Consent

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: e-petition 608745, End the ban on fracking, and e-petition 614611, Keep The Fracking Ban.]

09:30

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered local consent for fracking.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank colleagues who have sponsored the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who joins me here. I was grateful to receive cross-party support for my application from colleagues from six different parties, on both sides of the House, but it is a little disappointing that nobody from the Government Benches has joined us today.

I made the application for the debate to the Backbench Business Committee some six weeks—and one Prime Minister—ago, at a time when the Government had lifted the moratorium on fracking, claiming that it was necessary to increase our domestic fossil fuel output to cut costs and increase energy security.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)]

I very much welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Lady on securing it. I just want to make it clear that there is somebody from the Government Front Bench here: I am sitting here and listening carefully to everything she says.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the Minister for that intervention, but I was referring to Back Benchers in my previous comment.

The former Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), argued that fracking would only happen with local consent, but repeatedly declined to outline the detail on how consent might be obtained and whether it was synonymous with compensation. As I have said before, compensation is not consent, and I firmly believe that affected communities would oppose fracking in their area.

Since then, the current Prime Minister has U-turned on that U-turn. That is welcome, but with much of the Government’s 2019 manifesto abandoned, the Prime Minister pledging his own support for fracking over the summer and the Conservatives having voted to allow fracking just one month ago, I believe it is worthwhile obtaining some clarification from the Minister on the matter. I ask him to guarantee that fracking without consent is never forced on our communities, either in my constituency or anywhere else in Britain. We must prevent the Government from making yet another U-turn.

There is no mandate for fracking. It was outlawed in the manifesto of every major party in 2019 and only a tiny minority appear to believe that there is a benefit. The Liberal Democrat manifesto mentions “banning fracking for good.” “Permanently ban fracking”—the Labour party manifesto. The Conservative manifesto states,

“We will not support fracking”,

and the Green party manifesto reads

“Ban fracking, and other unconventional forms of fossil fuel extraction”.

Some 90% of the electorate voted for one of those parties. It is clear that people do not want fracking, and there are very good reasons why.

Britain cannot produce enough gas from fracking to reduce the global gas price, so it will not reduce our energy bills, especially when electricity from renewable sources is the cheapest form of energy we can produce. Investing in renewables—not only the cheapest, but the cleanest form of energy—is the best way to bring down our bills and our carbon emissions. As COP27 meets in Sharm El Sheikh and the lack of progress on the climate emergency is brought to international attention, it would be disastrous for the UK to start novel types of fossil fuel extraction. We need to find ways to keep fossil fuels in the ground, not waste effort looking for ever more inventive ways of extracting them.

The fundamental scientific evidence surrounding fracking and its safety has not changed either. Fracking is still unsafe and unproven. Last month the British Geological Survey refused to endorse fracking as a safe practice in its report for the Government. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee has previously warned that fracking poses a “risk to groundwater” and a

“risk of polluting surface water”,

and that the need for considerable quantities of water for fracking

“could pose localised risks to water supplies”.

This follows one of the driest summers ever; we cannot afford to take the risk.

Research commissioned by the Liberal Democrats has revealed that fracking caused 192 earthquakes in 182 days at one active site in the UK. That is more than one a day. A 2.9 magnitude earthquake was recorded near Cuadrilla’s site near Blackpool in 2019. Residents reported their shock at houses being shaken for two to three seconds. A report by the Oil and Gas Authority said it was not possible to predict the probability or size of tremors caused by the practice, so people do not want fracking for good reason. When they have had the opportunity to express their opposition, they have done so in numbers.

When fracking was last proposed at Dudleston Heath— a small village near Ellesmere in my constituency—a huge number of residents rapidly organised opposition to the proposed site. One constituent who led the protest said that they

“crammed about 300 people into the village hall”

in a public meeting about fracking. At the end of the meeting, a show of hands was requested, and he reported that

“everyone bar one person was against”

fracking.

Lovely as they are, I doubt whether the views of people in Dudleston Heath and Criftins are unique, and every MP in a potentially impacted area has had countless emails from constituents opposing the plans. Furthermore, the huge number of well-organised grassroots community groups that have cropped up across the country is evidence of a groundswell of opposition to the fracking plans.

We also saw well-organised opposition on a national level in the well-publicised campaigns by organisations such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England and Friends of the Earth, signalling the depth of support among many who do not live anywhere near one of the proposed sites.

In North Shropshire, a licence exists covering a small area of land by the Cheshire border, but whose impact zone extends to the market towns of Whitchurch and Market Drayton. There was huge concern in October when the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset, said in response to an urgent question that

“the moratorium on the extraction of shale gas is being lifted”.

He also said, in response to a question from me:

“Compensation and consent become two sides of the same coin. People will be able to negotiate the level of compensation and it will be a matter for the companies to try and ensure widespread consent by offering a compensation package that is attractive.”—[Official Report, 22 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 790-95.]

I find the suggestion that anyone will agree to something if they are paid enough slightly odd, although perhaps I am being a little idealistic, but I also believe that if the Conservatives refuse to impose an outright ban on fracking, a valid consent process must be put in place now to protect local communities in the event that the moratorium is lifted in future.

I propose a local referendum process—not just for those in the area covered by the fracking licence, but for the people living in the surrounding impact zone. When a council was approached for planning permission, it would have to gain the express consent of those in the affected areas before granting such permission. That should follow a period in which the full facts of the impact on the area were not only publicly available, but actively communicated to those affected. The planning inspector should not be able to overrule the decision reached in the local referendum and the subsequent council planning committee decision.

Local councils have been impacted by the cost of living crisis and are struggling to balance their budgets as it is, with many reporting financial distress, so the cost of administering those public information campaigns and subsequent referendums should not fall on the local council, or indeed the local taxpayer, but should be met by the company making the planning application. An application to exploit the resources of the British countryside should in no way be foisted on the taxpayer, but should be met by the companies that are making huge profits as a result of the global gas price. Will the Minister comment specifically on those suggestions for safeguarding communities that could be impacted by fracking in the event of a further Government U-turn?

Local communities affected by fracking have already expressed their opposition to the lifting of the moratorium; so, too, have the vast majority of the British people, who in 2019 voted for parties that opposed fracking in some form or another. Fracking simply will not bring down our energy bills, and if we are to address the energy problems the country faces, we must rapidly invest in renewable energy sources. The science has not changed either, and fracking is just as unsafe and unreliable as it was three years ago. I would welcome the Government’s confirmation of that point.

Given that the Conservative moratorium has been demonstrated to be fragile and temporary in nature, and that the Prime Minister pledged to overturn it in the summer leadership campaign, and given that Conservative MPs voted in favour of lifting the moratorium only a month ago, it is essential that a watertight process of local consent be put in place. If Conservative MPs will not pledge to honour their manifesto commitment and keep the ban on fracking, we must safeguard our communities from this unnecessary, disruptive and dangerous practice.

09:40

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. You are a friend and colleague, but also a very impartial Chair. Everybody is impartial, by the way, but you are impartial in giving me the same chance as everybody else and not a better chance—that is the point I am trying to make.

In the time that the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) has been in the House, she has shown that she looks after and tries hard for her constituents. Today she has clearly set the scene for the fracking debate in her constituency and across the whole United Kingdom.

I had hoped that there would be more Members here; I suppose that the debate has moved on because the Government have clarified their position. We are talking about something that still scares and alarms people, and I will share my perspective. I agree with the views of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, and I know she will go above and beyond to fight for her constituents on the issue, as she does vocally in the main Chamber and has today in Westminster Hall.

Some have seen fracking as a way to instil our self-sufficiency. I look forward to hearing the views of others, including the Minister. I am aware of a couple of fracking incidents in Northern Ireland, of which my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) will also be aware. The Democratic Unionist party has taken a strong stance on the issue by opposing fracking across Northern Ireland. One example is Belcoo in Fermanagh, where the opposition of local people was clear, and fracking has therefore moved no further. I think there might also have been a fracking application near Larne; you might have been at the same meeting, Mr Paisley. That is my recollection, although I am not sure whether it is entirely accurate, but, again, that application never went anywhere. I am very clear where we are and what we hope to achieve in this debate.

On local consent for fracking, I cannot agree more with the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who set the scene admirably. If fracking is to go ahead, the principle of consent goes without saying. The Government have committed to ensuring that local people will have the final say on what happens. I am reassured by that; the people I have spoken to are clear that they do not want it in their areas, and therefore it will never happen. I am sure the Minister will confirm that. I also very much look forward to the contribution of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who is a vocal spokesperson on the issue. I know that her comments will go along the lines of other Members’.

Before 2019 the Government required operators to obtain consent from the Secretary of State prior to commencing drilling or operations. That would be approved only if local planning authorities granted a petrol licence and environmental permits, which meant that local people always had input into the planning application process—but they did not have the last word, which is why I welcome what the Government have said. Fracking requires rigorous paperwork, but the most important aspect is the local consent of communities who would be directly impacted by fracking. I have received large numbers of emails and letters on the matter from all parts of the United Kingdom. We are in the mother of Parliaments, so we meet lots of people from across the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and they tell me the same thing: they are concerned about fracking.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend touches on the two key issues: the safety of any extraction process and local consent. Does he agree that if any extraction method, whatever it might be, falls on those two bases, no Government should permit it to proceed?

[Jim Shannon]

I fully and wholeheartedly agree. The hon. Member for North Shropshire referred to safety and danger in her contribution, which was significant. That cannot be ignored, and I hope to comment on it. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry is absolutely right about where we are; the DUP has opposing fracking in its manifesto for Northern Ireland.

For the family who live in their ancestors’ home, with great memories and familial traditions, to be told that their home may be affected will not be welcome news. If there is any possibility of hydraulic fracturing taking place, families at risk of facing housing damage must be offered compensation of the equivalent value of their property, to give them the option to move. There are obvious concerns about the impact of fracking on properties and the surroundings.

It is important that the full list of implications and possible risks is given to any property area to let people know the “what ifs”. The Truss Administration did not clarify what was meant by “local consent”. Would it involve a vote, numerous consultations, or financial incentives from larger energy companies? We and, most importantly, our constituents are in the dark. People are worried about subsidence, sinkholes, rates, energy prices, and the value of their house dropping, so when it comes to fracking issues, locals must have the last say.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry referred to safety and danger, and I think many people looking at fracking see the dangers very clearly. With that in mind, I would feel reassured if the last word—the only word that really matters—went to locals in the form of local consent, and if that were in any legislation the Government may bring forward. There would need to be clear and concrete evidence of the benefits of fracking in a particular area before any decision was made on the possibility of drilling, and the consent principle has to be key to that.

There needs to be intense focus on the planning system to ensure that a fracking development is an acceptable use of the land in question, as there may be better uses for that land. There is big demand for housing, especially social housing, here on the mainland and across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is where the money should be spent and the focus should be.

Concerns have been expressed that it will be down to the fracking companies to assess local community consent. I do not think that it should be. I cannot agree with fracking companies assessing local community consent; there has to be an independent body, otherwise there is potential for bias and persuasion. Should it be deemed that fracking would be beneficial in an area, the local consent process must be carried out by an independent individual or body. I therefore seek an assurance from the Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect. The question is not just whether there is local consent; if someone is to carry out a survey or questionnaire, that process must be independent.

There is a range of views and information to assess when coming to any decision on fracking. First, if there is no hard evidence that fracking will provide some sort of self-sufficiency to an area, there is no need for it to be done at all. Secondly, local communities’ consent should be at the forefront of the discussion and they should have the last word in any process. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire for ensuring that that is the case, and it will continue to be the case for the debate on fracking, whenever it reappears, whether that be in the main Chamber, here or through questions.

There is a real consensus across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to oppose fracking in principle, but writing into any discussions and legislation local consent—that local communities get the last and final word—would give us protection.

09:49

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) being such a powerful advocate for her local communities in North Shropshire. I thank her for bringing this crucial and serious debate to the Chamber today.

When the disastrous and short-lived previous Government announced that they would lift the moratorium on fracking, they never gave a single thought to our local communities. They provided no answer to how they would get local consent. Many people, including many MPs, were outraged that fracking would be forced upon them once again. I echo my hon. Friend’s observation that it is disappointing that there are not more Conservative Back Benchers here to voice their discontent about the U-turn that the Government made only a month ago, and to make their disappointment and outrage known to the Government so that they will never dare to bring back any such proposals. We can never rest until fracking is banned.

Fracked fuel is a fossil fuel. Fracking flies in the face of our net zero commitment. The Government’s own experts said that seismic activity caused by hydraulic fracking was not safe. Fracking has been linked to multiple health defects. It is disgraceful that the Government even considered lifting the ban and putting the population at risk.

I would like to set the record straight. When the former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), so grandly declared that his local community would welcome fracking, that was not so. There was a petition going round Bath and North East Somerset asking for a ban on fracking. Let us put the record straight: local communities in Bath and North East Somerset did not welcome fracking.

The Government’s flirtation with fracking proves their unserious approach to climate change and the environment. I am afraid that will not change under the new Prime Minister. When he was Chancellor, the Prime Minister introduced a windfall tax incentivising firms to invest in fossil fuel extraction. As Prime Minister, he had to be dragged to COP27. Those are not the actions of someone who will treat the climate emergency with the urgency it demands.

Investing heavily in renewables is clearly the answer to the UK’s energy crisis. However, securing local consent is vital, even for popular solutions such as renewables. Local communities must be brought on board for the net zero transition; after all, they are the ones who will have to bear a lot of the costs, host new infrastructure in their neighbourhoods, and alter their routines and behaviours. Without that, there is a risk that people will not welcome or accept the necessary changes. The consequences of that would make our progress to net zero much lengthier, more costly and more contested. It would be less inclusive, equitable and environmentally sustainable.

Local consent is what we Liberal Democrats always ask for. The most successful net zero projects have local consent. Where possible, should projects not be undertaken by local people with a stake in them? Local communities are best placed to provide detailed knowledge of their local area. They have expert understanding of how their area functions and what their communities value.

The Government must remove the shackles from local authorities and give them the powers and funding they need as partners in reaching net zero. In Bath and North East Somerset, domestic and business solar capacity has doubled since our council declared a climate emergency in 2019. These local initiatives should be encouraged by the Government but, instead, they are being restricted by hollowed-out local authority budgets and our planning laws.

Community energy projects must also be encouraged. They allow people to purchase clean electricity directly from a local supply company or co-operative. That ensures that every pound spent on powering our homes or cars is recycled back into the local community. Energy projects should be carried by our local communities, and they are the ones who need to provide consent, whatever the solutions. Community energy is one of the few tried and tested means of engaging people in energy systems. In my constituency, Bath and West Community Energy has installed enough renewable energy to power nearly 4,500 homes. I take this opportunity—it is a good opportunity, because we are talking about local consent and local energy provision—to ask the Minister again whether he will back the Local Electricity Bill, which is supported by more than half of MPs across the House.

Achieving local consent is crucial if we are serious about meeting our net zero targets. Gaining local consent for fracking was never going to happen. However, local communities passionately support renewable projects. They just need the Government to empower them to deliver those projects—and we need a Government that finally bans fracked fuel, which flies in the face of our net zero commitments.

09:55

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley, and to see the Minister. I do not think we have gone head to head across the Chamber before. It is a little disappointing that the Minister for Climate, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), is not here, although I appreciate why he is not. The last time we faced each other in a fracking debate, which was in the main Chamber, the outcome was suboptimal from his point of view because it led to chaos and the resignation of the Prime Minister the next morning. I suspect that today will be a rather more sedate affair. We cannot expect that sort of excitement every day, although, given how eventful politics has been lately, it would not surprise me if something imploded later.

It is also a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without him. I think he came down against fracking, but he made a wide-ranging speech on the issue. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) was right to say that there is no support, or very little support, for fracking in Bath and North East Somerset. I say that as an MP whose constituency neighbours that of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who said he would be happy to have fracking in his back garden—his back garden is probably big enough for that. Beyond that, as the hon. Lady said, there is very little support.

As I have said, the last time we discussed fracking it was pretty chaotic. The former Prime Minister made lifting the ban on fracking a cornerstone of her short-lived Administration. I still do not see why she did that. It was a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment to keep the moratorium unless the science proved otherwise. The science did not change because the geology did not change—a recent expert report by the British Geological Survey said that that was the case—so fracking was still seen as unsafe, it was clearly incompatible with our climate obligations, and it was deeply unpopular.

During that debate in the main Chamber, Back-Bench Conservative MPs came out to declare their opposition to fracking. They did not vote against it on that occasion, but it was clear that they were unhappy. If this debate had happened a few weeks ago—I suspect the application was made back then—this place would have been teeming with MPs from across the House, including Conservatives, wanting to make sure that their opposition to fracking was on the record. I think that now they probably want the issue to just go away—they want to pretend that the last few weeks did not happen and that there was never any question of the ban being lifted—and that is why they are not here today.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Lady agree that we must continue to put pressure on the Government to end fracking once and for all or it might come back under the next Government—and who knows when that will come along?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Exactly. Because it is not clear why the last Prime Minister felt obliged to lift the ban on fracking, despite all the arguments against it, we will always have that scintilla of doubt that it has not completely gone away. There was no logic to her decision, so—who knows?—perhaps equally illogical decisions will be made in the future. The current Prime Minister has not embraced the moratorium on fracking out of any green credentials of his own. It is clearly an issue of party management. It is very sensible to reverse the U-turn and go back to the 2019 manifesto, but during the summer leadership election, he actively supported the return of fracking in areas where there was local support.

The Prime Minister also came out against solar power. I do not suppose the Minister is in a position to reply, but I am trying to find out through parliamentary questions whether there has been a change to the mooted policy of the previous Administration—we almost need names for each of the Administrations, because it gets confusing talking about the former this and former that—to bring other, less fertile agricultural land into the “best and most versatile land” category, meaning a ban on solar on that reclassified land. Having talked to the National Farmers Union and other farmers, I hope that that policy has now been reversed. Obviously, we do not want the entire countryside to be covered with solar panels, but we do want to see them in the right places. Solar can also be mixed with farming, as farmers can grow things under solar panels in some cases. I would like to think that there is now, under this Administration, more support for solar on our farmland.

I would say that the policy on onshore wind is still unclear, but actually, when the Prime Minister was pressed on it at Prime Minister’s questions, it seemed clear that the ban remains. Considering that there were plans to allow fracking, I cannot see why onshore wind would be seen as less attractive than that. As I said, the moratorium on fracking was a 2019 manifesto commitment. The problem is that there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State taking unilateral action to lift the moratorium without any oversight or scrutiny from the House or input from local communities.

Our energy policy should be decided by what is best to bring down energy bills, what is best for our energy security and environment and, of course, whether there is public consent. In all those cases, it is clear that fracking should not be on the table. Labour has been clear that we want a full, permanent ban on fracking, and we want it now. It is unlikely, but, if the Minister was able to commit to a ban, I am sure that he would make not just those present but a lot of his Back Benchers happy.

In the debate on bringing back fracking, it was difficult to work out what the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset—or, indeed, a number of other Ministers—meant when he said that the Government would allow fracking only if there was “local consent”. Lots of Government Back Benchers pressed him during that debate on what exactly that meant and it has come up on other occasions in the Chamber. Particularly worryingly, it almost seemed as though it was not really about asking people whether they consented; it was not a local referendum or actually going into a community and asking people if they support fracking. There was quite a lot of talk about compensation being offered, and it almost sounded as though the plan was to buy off local people, and perhaps the council that would issue planning permission, rather than speaking to individuals who would be affected. That would clearly be unacceptable. If we were going back to lifting the ban and allowing fracking—there are so many double negatives in this debate; we are going round in circles with all the U-turns—what does the Minister envisage asking for local consent to look like?

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I made the point that it cannot be the energy companies themselves holding the discussions with local people because, by their very nature, they will have a bias; it has to be an independent body or person going door to door collecting opinions from individuals one to one. In that way, I think a very clear opinion would be drawn. We almost know the end result, but that must be the way to do it.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is the case, is it not? It seems like a futile exercise—I do not think there is any community in the country that actually wants fracking to happen—but the hon. Gentleman is quite right that the energy companies, which have a vested interest in fracking, cannot be in charge of such an exercise, because it would be skewed.

If fracking was treated in the same way as this Government have treated onshore wind, which is a genuinely popular and clean source of energy, a single local objection could be enough to sink proposals. It is very easy to stop onshore wind, although, as we know, the Government currently have a policy not to proceed with it anyway.

No matter how the Government try to bend the definition of local consent, the reality is that fracking is deeply unpopular. The Government’s own polling showed that only 17% of people support fracking, and I suspect that most of them do not want it in their backyard. I think there was a Conservative Minister in the Lords who talked about how fracking was not suitable for the south but suggested that it would be welcomed up in the “desolate” north. I suspect some of those 17% want fracking somewhere, but not where they live.

From the polling on other energy sources, 74% support new onshore wind, yet the Government are sticking with the ban on it. Some 75% oppose the Government’s banning solar panels on farmland, but, as I have said, the current Prime Minister still seems very negative on both of those proposals. My point is that this Government’s energy policy appears to be inherently biased towards fossil fuels. The Minister looked slightly shocked at that, but the Government have just issued 100 new oil and gas licences: if that is not bias towards fossil fuels, I do not know what is. Between a ban on onshore wind, lots of scepticism about solar, issuing licences for oil and gas exploration, and at one point trying to bring back fracking, I think it is very clear where the bias lies.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is this not also a sign that the Government are entirely behind the curve? When fracking was mooted a decade ago as a transition fuel, it might have been something that could be considered, because the legislation at the time was aiming only for 80% renewable energy by 2050. Since 2018, we have known that we need to get to 100%, so transition fuels are a complete nonsense. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I absolutely do agree. Fracking is certainly not greener and, as well as all the other reasons why we oppose it, it is not a cheaper source of energy, either.

The Minister for Climate, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, tried to gaslight the British public with his recent claim that fracking is green. He has also tried to say that oil and gas exploration in the North sea is green because the alternative is importing it, so we would have the extra costs of importing from elsewhere. Clearly, the green alternative is renewables. I would ask the Minister for Climate why, if he was right to say that fracking is a green option, it is opposed by so many of his colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), who was the President of COP26, and the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is conducting the net zero review. Extracting fossil fuels will never be green, and I hope that the Minister who is here today will make that clear when he replies to the debate.

Right now, there is immense pressure at COP27 to secure genuinely ambitious agreements to leave fossil fuels in the ground for good. Sending a clear message about our commitment to net zero and the move away from fossil fuels is vital, but the Government have been sending out such mixed signals—as has been said, the Prime Minister was not even going to go to COP, and had to be dragged there. That sends a terrible message about our global leadership. If our climate commitments are called into question, how can we expect other people to step up to the plate? It is time to end any doubts about the UK’s commitment to climate action. Listening to communities and implementing a permanent ban on fracking, and bringing back onshore wind and solar, would be a good start.

10:07

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, in the absence of the Minister for Climate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who is dealing with these very issues at COP27 today. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan); she is a very exciting new Member of Parliament, and she has done well today in bringing this issue to the attention of the House.

As somebody who was as concerned as everyone else here that the very short-lived Administration that took office in September flirted with the idea of lifting the 2019 Conservative moratorium on fracking, I am delighted to say that that policy has very clearly been reversed by the Prime Minister. To say that this horse has bolted is to liken Shergar to a beach pony; the issue is well and truly put to bed. I will deal with the points that hon. Members have made, but it gives me great pleasure to make it very clear that this Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Secretary of State, and the Minister for Climate—in fact, this whole Government—have returned to our position in the 2019 manifesto, which was an effective moratorium on fracking.

Furthermore—this may go some way towards answering the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)—Ministers are taking a presumption against issuing any further hydraulic fracking consents. I accept that for a month or two, all sorts of horses were running wild around the beach, but the position is absolutely clear. For those listening, and for the 18,000 people who signed the petition, let me be very clear: the Government are not about to open up the UK fracking market. We are back to the position that we set out in 2019.

I thank those who have spoken today. It is a great pleasure to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I know I am in the right room when I see him here, assiduous as ever. I also thank the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Bristol East. I will deal with the points that have been made and with the broader context in which we need to view this issue. I will say something about the energy supply market, something about gas and something about local consent. Members have raised some important points about the role and the mechanisms of local consent in these sectors, in relation not only to gas but to all critical national infrastructure and other renewables.

Let me start by setting the scene. As someone who has been in this House for 12 years and has been watching it for about 30, I think it is fair to say—I can see that colleagues around the House feel the same way—that, as a country, for decades we have rather taken energy for granted. Until about 15 years ago we presumed it was something that would always be there, very cheaply, at the flick of a switch, and we did not have to worry too much about it. That position has changed, rather belatedly but dramatically, in the last 15 years. I pay tribute to the last climate change Minister in the Labour Government before 2010, who started a profound acceleration of our leadership on net zero. I am proud that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition between 2010 and 2015, and then the Conservative Government, have taken that forward. Our leadership on net zero has come on leaps and bounds.

The scale of that success bears repeating. Since 1990, we have managed to grow the economy by about 40% and the net zero sector by around 70%. We have managed to demonstrate that it is possible to have green growth. There has been extraordinary progress. I accept, as I think everyone does, that as a country we were late to this. However, low-carbon electricity now gives us around half of our total generation, we have installed 99% of our solar capacity since 2010, the onshore wind industry is already generating over 14 GW and is happily accepted around the country—onshore wind is cheap—and we have put £30 billion of domestic investment into the green industrial revolution. Those are figures that, even 15 years ago, one might have been surprised to see. This country is genuinely leading in making the big transitional investments to move to net zero.

Of course, in the last 18 months, the pandemic and the appalling situation in Ukraine have triggered a cost of living crisis and, in particular, a cost of energy crisis globally. That has reminded us of the importance of having resilient supply chains and ensuring that we are not vulnerable to hostile actors internationally, or to supply chains in which we can be held to ransom.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The Minister talks about the UK’s leadership in renewables, which is positive. Should there not be a Government ambition to be an exporter of renewable energy, since we have so many opportunities to share that with Europe? Is that not a brilliant opportunity when we are talking about global Britain and its leadership in renewables?

[George Freeman]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Indeed, that is why the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), used to refer to the southern North sea as the Saudi Arabia of wind energy. That is precisely our ambition. First, we need to ensure that we can meet our own domestic energy market needs.

The hon. Member for Bath makes a crucial point for me very well, which is that we are in a global market and global energy demand over the next 20, 30 and 40 years will rise. It is not just a question of moving our existing energy demands to renewable supplies, vital though that is; it is also about developing the renewables of the future and contributing globally. As Minister for science, research, technology and innovation, I can say that we are investing heavily in small nuclear, in fusion, in marine and in geothermal, because we see a huge opportunity for the UK to be in the vanguard of the renewables and clean energies of tomorrow.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his detailed, helpful and comprehensive response. I read in the paper over the weekend about some of the innovation across the world on which we can interact with others. I understand that Morocco has an abundance of green energy, and, if the press are correct, that discussions are taking place between the UK Government and the Moroccan Government to export that green energy to the United Kingdom by an undersea channel. Is the Minister aware of that and if he is, could he elaborate on it?

[George Freeman]

The hon. Member has made an important point. I will not attempt to answer it because I am not the Minister for Climate, but I will flag it with him and ask that the hon. Member gets a proper answer.

As well as our groundbreaking leadership in the transition of our existing energy system to net zero supply, we are investing heavily in the technologies of tomorrow to ensure that we can be a global player in the great challenges we face. Agriculture and transport are the two biggest industries after energy that generate and use the most carbon and greenhouse gases, and we are hugely advanced in research and development in those sectors. I say that as a former Minister for future transport and for agritech. This country has a huge opportunity as part of the science superpower mission to generate solutions that we can export around the world, and I am proud of what we are doing.

Given the crisis in Ukraine and the extraordinary pressures on everybody this year when it comes to paying their energy bills, the Government made a huge commitment to cap those energy bills and provide support, but it is right that our customers—the constituents we serve, taxpayers, households and businesses—would expect any responsible Government to look at whether there are easily and quickly accessible supplies of clean gas in the UK that could be extracted in a sensible and environmentally satisfactory way. People would think it was daft and weird if we were not prepared even to look at doing so in such a context. But let me be clear: that cannot in any situation go against our own environmental commitments, the environmental advice we have received or, crucially, local consent. As others have said, the British Geological Survey has made it crystal clear that there is no evidence to suggest that fracking can be pursued in any way that would pass that test. Again, I am delighted to repeat how pleased I personally am that we—the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Government —have made it clear that we are back to our 2019 effective moratorium.

[Helen Morgan]

Given that the Government are happy to express their commitment to stopping fracking, would they be willing to put that into legislation so that we do not always have a shadow of doubt hanging over us that the issue might raise its ugly head again?

[George Freeman]

I hear the hon. Member; she has made her point and put it on the record. I am slightly adverse to the idea that we put into legislation every single thing that we are not going to do. We would be here an awfully long time to reassure everyone. I am not sure that that is a sustainable way for Parliament to proceed. The Prime Minister made it clear through the written ministerial statement to the House, and the sector and community generally have understood that the idea mooted in September is now dead and buried, and we will not go back there.

I turn to the important point regarding local consent, which a number of colleagues have made. There is little I can say about pockets of local consent in particular areas. With regard to the situation in North Shropshire, in response to which the hon. Member for North Shropshire partly brought forward this debate, the licence for fracking that would potentially impact the Market Drayton and Whitchurch area is an indicative licence. No work has been done and no application for work has been received. In the light of the announcement of the return to the 2019 position, it is difficult to envisage any situation in which that licence could be of any use. I reassure her that we are not expecting any activity in that area.

We all—and the Government certainly—recognise that community support is important. We generally want planning to be something that is done through and with local communities, not to them. Some sort of balance is always required. Obviously, there is a huge difference between a loft extension and the siting of a huge piece of critical national infrastructure. However, a good developer will and should always engage with the local community and listen to real concerns.

I have seen consultations in my area where concerns have been expressed but have not been listened to or reflected in the proposals, and no change has been made to anything that was promoted. That often drives the view of sham consultations, in which people are not being heard. We need to be wary of assuming a one-size-fits-all approach would work for local support. Difficult though it is to see how this would take off, we have left open the possibility that if an area—north, south, south-west, Scotland or Northern Ireland—found itself sitting on an easy and geologically stable opportunity to exploit shale gas and came to the Government with strong local consent, strong environmental data and a strong business and environmental case, the Government would consider it. That is very different from us setting an ambition and encouraging this industry around the country.

My constituency is home to the first two major substations, connecting the first two offshore wind farms in the southern North sea. As the local constituency MP, I watched as the scheme promoter came forward with a proposal for a substation, which I naively thought 10 years ago was a thing the size of a shipping container that hums behind a yew bush, but this thing is the size of Wembley stadium and its proposed location was on top of a hill, so the whole of Norfolk could see this huge piece of industrial development. I was not against hosting the substation in Mid Norfolk, but through decent consultation with the company, we ended up siting it in low-lying ground, out of sight, with minimal light and visual impact.

For our thanks, we have had another one; we now have two next to each other in Mid Norfolk. It is critical infrastructure, although if we were better connecting all the offshore wind farms, we could reduce the need for individual substations and cabling all across the Norfolk and Suffolk coast. The Minister for Climate is looking into that, because it would support the infrastructure for trading out of the southern North sea. I have seen at first hand that communities are often not properly consulted. As other hon. Members have said, without in any way opening up the risk of community benefit creating an opportunity for some sort of inappropriate payments to buy consent, I believe it is important that when a village is hosting two vast pieces of national infrastructure, it might get a park bench or some swings or something from the developer, which is making a huge amount of money.

There is a difficult balance to strike, but we all know good consent and good consultation when we see it. We know when a company is listening and when a community has been properly heard. I do not think that has been the case often enough and I am delighted to have the chance to put that on record.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for giving way and engaging so much in the debate. There are question marks around where the Government are going with planning. I believe investment zones have been dropped, but I am not sure where we are on fast-tracking things, and bypassing planning permission and local consent. I will leave that for another day. What I want to ask him is this: I understand what he said about a hypothetical situation where fracking was proven to be safe, the local community wanted it and so on, but why is that not the case for onshore wind? If a local community would clearly benefit from onshore wind, why are they not allowed to have it?

[George Freeman]

I do not want to steal the thunder of my ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, who is looking at that issue right now. The pandemic and the war in Ukraine have revealed that we are exposed on a number of our food and agricultural supply chains. We need to get the balance right between covering far too much of our agricultural land and equally making sure that where communities can carry industrial sites, we have the right incentives in place.

[Jim Shannon]

We have had a number of debates in Westminster Hall on that very issue. Others who have spoken on that have said that key agricultural land needs to be retained for food production, and all the more so because of the food supply crisis across the world and the Ukraine war. With great respect, I believe there has been a consensus that highly productive agricultural land needs to be retained for that purpose alone.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Member makes an important point, which I personally agree with and the Government are sensitive to. Again, our constituents would think it perverse if, at the very time when our exposure to international food supply and agricultural supply chains has been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and the pandemic, we were then to decide to take out of productive capacity huge areas of agricultural land. Agriculture is a great British industry and the agritech sector is developing net zero technologies that allow us to do clean and green agriculture. We do not want to undermine that industry.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Is it not time that we busted some urban myths about solar panels and where they go? Most of the time they go on land that is not suitable for agricultural use other than, for example, sheep grazing. Is there not a myth about where we are putting these solar farms?

[George Freeman]

I am not sure it is a myth; it is a mixed bag. There are areas where solar has been deployed very effectively, with happy sheep grazing around it and very little reduction in the productive capacity of land. I do not want to stray beyond my brief—I am not the Minister with responsibility for energy—but equally there are in my part of the world, in the east of England, proposals for huge, industrial-scale solar on good productive farmland. In the spirit of the question from the hon. Member for Strangford, I think a lot of people are worried about those proposals.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was asking about onshore wind, not the solar issue. With solar, there is the question of how the Government classify the best and most versatile—BMV—land. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Strangford that genuine BMV land should not be used for anything other than growing food, but I asked about onshore wind. Onshore wind does not always need to be put on farmland; there are lots of other potential sites.

[George Freeman]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. In some ways, the two are linked, because there are plenty of examples of deployment of solar and wind onshore that do not undermine the productive capacity of land or the attractiveness of the area. Opinion polls show that if they are properly deployed in the right areas with the right consultation and consent, onshore measures can be popular. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Climate is considering whether there is more we can do to tackle this short-term energy crisis in a way that does not create a problem for us downstream.

I should wrap up; I have strayed beyond my core brief as the Minister for science, research and innovation. Let me close by giving all those watching this debate around the country clear reassurance that the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Government, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Climate have taken us back to the position set out in our 2019 manifesto, of which I was proud: an effective moratorium on fracking. We have made it clear that Ministers are not looking to open up fracking to support the crisis in our energy sector. I hope that message goes forth, loud and clear around the country, to those who were understandably worried back in September. They no longer need worry about that at least.

10:27

[Helen Morgan]

I thank you, Mr Paisley, for your chairmanship, and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. I also thank the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for attending the debate. To clear up any confusion, at the start I was expressing my disappointment that there were not more Back Benchers here to put on the record their concern about their communities being able to consent to a very controversial process.

I am also grateful to the Minister for clarifying the Government’s position; I think that we all agree that that U-turn is welcome. However, while there is still this shadow of doubt, it would be nice if the Government committed to putting some formal consent process in place to safeguard communities in the event of a future change of heart.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his kind words, for giving us the Northern Ireland perspective, and for clarifying that the issue is controversial across the whole United Kingdom, not just in rural England.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath for her kind comments. She is a formidable environment campaigner, who we are proud to have in our party, and she made an excellent speech, expressing that local empowerment is at the heart of what Liberal Democrats stand for and believe. I am grateful for her contribution.

I cannot remember the last time that anyone described me as exciting, so I thank the Minister for that kind comment; I hope that it was well intended!

I am grateful for the comments made today. Everybody has made valuable points. We strongly feel that the local consent mechanism should be put in place to safeguard our communities.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on leading her first Westminster Hall debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered local consent for fracking.

10:30

Sitting suspended.

Mathematical Sciences: Contribution to Society

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Westminster Hall

10:57

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I am going to call Sir Stephen Timms to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up because that is the convention in a 30-minute debate.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the contribution of the mathematical sciences to society.

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and am most grateful to Mr Speaker for selecting this subject for debate to help to mark Maths Week this week. I am pleased to see the distinguished Schools Minister in his place, and I welcome and applaud his appointment—for the third time, if I remember correctly, which surely makes him the longest-serving Schools Minister ever, and deservedly so. I am also pleased that the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who I think taught maths before being elected, is in her place.

The aims of Maths Week are to raise the profile of mathematics throughout England, change the conversation about maths in the population at large to be more positive, enable children and adults from all backgrounds to access and enjoy mathematical experiences, supplement teachers and support them to plan low-cost and high-impact maths activities at their schools during the week, encourage higher education centres to invite schoolchildren to visit maths events, raise aspiration, encourage greater take-up of maths at A-level and university, and make maths accessible to and enjoyable for people who think it an elitist subject just for “clever” people.

I want to do four things in my speech: underline the value of maths in enabling us to solve the big challenges our society faces and to build our economy; press the Minister to deliver the full commitment on funding for research in the mathematical sciences pledged by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), in January 2020; argue for ensuring that degree-level maths does not become the preserve of the well-off; and press the case for much higher take-up of maths post 16, fulfilling the promise of core maths, which we see in the higher take- up of maths in the most successful economies around the world.

I have a maths degree, so I am biased, and I know that maths can often seem a bit impenetrable to those not familiar with it, and that being “no good” at maths can almost be a boast sometimes, but maths enables the most exciting and urgent technological developments in energy generation, artificial intelligence, driverless cars, quantum computing and tackling climate change. Professor Alison Etheridge, chair of the Council for the Mathematical Sciences, points out that the maths used to design dust filters in vacuum cleaners is also used to develop filters to remove arsenic from groundwater in the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta, which benefits hundreds of thousands of people.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman bringing the matter forward and I concur with his comments.

At this time, many of the United Kingdom’s priorities are focused on energy supply and climate change, as well as targets for the future, and the University of Lancaster has concluded that mathematics has proven to be a basic but crucial component of building resilience in terms of flooding and understanding data fluctuations with respect to our energy supplies. With that in mind, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that further funding for mathematics must be centred on helping our students of STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—including 53% of further education students in Northern Ireland, although I acknowledge the Minister has no responsibility for them, because they are paving the way for success with respect to environmental change in the UK?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I do agree with him: maths is a vital enabler of economic growth, and it underpins many technological advancements that contribute so much to UK economic growth. We need to value that.

Deloitte estimates that the mathematical sciences add more than £200 billion a year to the UK economy, that there is a significant salary premium for advanced maths skills, which is calculated to be £8,000 a year, and that the mathematical sciences are of fundamental importance to tackling all our most pressing policy challenges. The hon. Gentleman has just given a good example of that.

The maths that is most familiar to us is about certainty—a x b = c—but maths also provides the tools to quantify uncertainty, underpinning important decisions in medicine and finance, and on the environment. Furthermore, understanding uncertainty is crucial to making decisions on how to deploy limited resources, from allocating hospital beds to dividing up the bandwidth available for telecommunications.

The briefing for the debate provided by the Protect Pure Maths campaign, which I congratulate on its efforts, gives a couple of examples of the use of a mathematical theory called extreme value theory. Unfortunately, my maths course did not include extreme value theory, which has been used in the successful work of Professor Chris Dent and others on energy generation and storage, which has had a big impact on improving energy supply, as well as in the work referred to by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), carried out at the University of Lancaster, to build resilience against extreme flood events.

Extreme value theory was not invented for those reasons, but as invariably happens with mathematical theories developed initially because they are beautiful and fascinating, that theory has turned out to have immensely important practical applications. Algebraic geometry is an important set of ideas in pure maths, some of which were in my course, and pure mathematician turned economist Elizabeth Baldwin has applied the theory of algebraic geometry to microeconomics to design an effective auction system for carbon permits. Her work has been used by the Bank of England, and more and more maths is being used in the social sciences and humanities.

Protect Pure Maths is calling for the Government to demonstrate their understanding of the transformative power of maths by launching a strategy for maths to strengthen UK leadership and to equip us to compete in a global economy that is increasingly dominated by big data, complex systems and artificial intelligence. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries also provided a briefing for the debate, and it points out that mathematics is fundamental to the work of actuaries in insurance and pensions, and in health and care.

In January 2020, there was a warm welcome for the commitment by the then Prime Minister to invest £300 million of additional funding into research in the mathematical sciences. Of that, £124 million has been spent on projects of national importance, including on institutes, small and large research grants, fellowships, doctoral studentships and post-doctoral awards.

Some of that work is concerned with solving current challenges of the kind that I have referred to, but some rightly is to pursue intellectual inquiry of the kind that characterises pure maths, the output of which will almost certainly yield real-world applications in future, although they are not apparent at the moment. More than half the additional investment—£176 million—has not yet been allocated.

The chief executive of UK Research and Innovation has stated:

“We did not receive £300 million specifically labelled ‘mathematical sciences’ despite the announcement.”

The announcement that she referred to was made by the then Prime Minister. We are surely not in the position where a crystal-clear announcement, attracting lots of attention, made by a Conservative Prime Minister, turned out to be untrue. A recent written answer on this from the noble Lord Callanan in the other place suggested that there was doubt about whether the funding would be forthcoming. I hope the Minister will clarify that, and confirm that the funding already announced for hugely valuable mathematical science research will be delivered.

Without that additional £176 million, doctoral studentships, fellowships and research programmes will remain unfunded. University maths departments need clarity about the sustainability of maths funding, in order to give the go-ahead for research and innovation programmes that will last years into the future—programmes that will underpin future technological breakthroughs of great economic importance.

Marcus du Sautoy, Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, has made the point that

“maths underpins all science and technology”.

So it makes sense, he says,

“to allocate funds to mathematical research, even at a time of tight finances…It would be incredibly unwise to now abandon that pledge.”

We have seen welcome progress with advanced maths education since I was doing the Minister’s job more than 20 years ago. The trend then of falling numbers of A-level applicants and undergraduates was halted and, I think, reversed. Changes introduced by another maths graduate, Charles Clarke, when he was Secretary of State, started the improving trend.

The Protect Pure Maths campaign was initially established in response to some UK universities cutting back their maths provision. Governments might be reluctant to intervene in the decisions of individual universities, but the Government should make clear the strategic importance of maths, and incentivise and support universities to give it priority, particularly beyond Russell Group universities, because maths is becoming an almost exclusively high-tariff degree. There is big growth at many high-tariff university maths courses, with one leading maths department in England increasing its intake from 300 to 600 undergraduates a year, but the courses at low-tariff universities, many of them highly regarded, are shrinking. One of them has gone from 150 to 35 undergraduates a year.

Students from lower-income backgrounds are much less likely to go to university outside their local area. If maths courses become too small to be viable, we will see the emergence of maths deserts, which would reduce access to one of the best degrees in terms of future earnings. We need strong and sustainable maths departments at universities in all parts of the country, and in universities of all kinds.

The other key issue for this Maths Week debate is the low take-up of maths in the UK post GCSE. More 16 to 18-year-olds should be encouraged to take up core maths, which is an invention of this Government that I imagine the Minister had a good deal to do with at the time. The background is that, in 2010, the Nuffield Foundation published a report titled “Is the UK an outlier? An international comparison of upper secondary mathematics education”. It turned out that the answer to that question was yes. Twenty-four countries were surveyed, and the UK had the lowest level of participation in upper secondary maths. Of the 24, England, Wales and Northern Ireland were the only countries with participation of less than 20%.

In June 2011, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), looked forward to a situation in which

“within a decade the vast majority of pupils are studying mathematics right through to the age of 18”.

In 2014, he said that by 2020—two years ago—the vast majority of students would be studying maths in some form after the age of 16. He meant not just A-level maths but the new qualification of level 3 core maths, which teaches the statistical and analytical skills essential to every profession, from law to medicine, and from journalism to manufacturing.

That increase has not happened. Progress in the last eight years has been lamentable—one might even say negligible. The UK remains an outlier. In Germany, Japan and the USA, well over 50% of 17-year-olds are studying maths in some form. In Finland and Ireland, the figure is over 80%. In the UK, it is still below 20%.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is giving an exceptional speech. I am delighted to speak out in Maths Week for the subject that I studied and love. Does he agree that one of the challenges for rural schools particularly is that, because of the restrictions of their rural settings, they are unable to have specialist science, technology, engineering and maths sixth forms? I hope the new ministerial team will apply more maths in general to their funding decisions. In rural schools, the funding simply does not add up, and in large education authorities, such as Devon, we do look not at the variance in achievement but only at the average.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her well-informed and valid comment. The big problem is the shortage of teachers. In rural schools and elsewhere, getting hold of teachers with specialist maths abilities who are able to teach the subject post 17 is a big challenge. I very much agree with her. The Government should invest more in recruiting, developing and retaining maths teachers, because the lack of teachers is the key problem with the take-up of core maths. We need subject-specific continuing professional development for all maths teachers, and we need to upskill maths teachers who do not have a maths degree.

Maths is hugely valuable in enabling us to solve the big challenges that our society faces, and in building the economy. The Government must deliver the full commitment of funding into research in the mathematical sciences pledged by the then Prime Minister in January 2020. Degree-level mathematics must not become the preserve of the well-off. As the Government repeatedly said some years ago, we also need much higher take-up of maths post 16, as we see in the most successful economies around the world. The Government must fulfil their earlier promises. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

11:14

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Nick Gibb)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley—for the first time, I think. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) on securing this debate, which concerns a subject that I, he and my hon. Friends regard as very important. I thank him for his generous comments about my reappointment. He, too, was a Schools Minister, and I know how deeply he cares about the education of the next generation, particularly children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Mathematical sciences are fundamental to our success as a nation. A deep mathematical and scientific knowledge and understanding is a necessary element of everyday life, but is increasingly required in more and more occupations and higher education courses—not just in the sciences but the social sciences and humanities. The Government are committed to ensuring that all pupils have a solid grounding in maths and science, and to encouraging greater participation as they progress through their school careers so we can grow the numbers of engineers, research scientists and technology experts of the future.

Improving mathematical knowledge at all levels is likely to deliver significant returns in terms of labour market skills, individual success—as the right hon. Member for East Ham said in his speech—increased productivity and longer-term economic benefit. It will allow us to lead the way in scientific innovation. Keeping the UK’s place at the leading edge of science and technology will be essential to our prosperity and competitiveness in the digital age.

The Government recognise that demand for STEM alumni at all levels is growing. That is why we must ensure that everyone, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to pursue STEM careers. Improving the quality of maths and science teaching, and increasing the number of young people who study those subjects beyond GCSE, is key to addressing the STEM shortage, and to supporting the UK economy and its growth. The Department is therefore encouraging more students into STEM subjects across all key stages, from primary and secondary school to higher and further education.

The Government have committed to substantial spending on maths, digital and technical education to increase the take-up and better teaching of STEM subjects in schools and colleges. Instilling a deep understanding and love of mathematics—shared by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—from an early age is vital. That is why the Department introduced teaching for mastery, which is a pedagogy based on high performing jurisdictions, including Shanghai and Singapore, that emphasises whole-class teaching and builds knowledge systematically—step by step and in small increments. That helps students to gain fluency and a deep understanding of mathematical concepts. I saw that at first hand when I visited Shanghai schools a few years ago.

The Department has spent over £100 million on the teaching for mastery programme, delivered by maths hubs—40 school-led centres of excellence in maths teaching that are responsible for a range of activities to improve the teaching of maths in all schools, from primary school to the age of 18. The hubs are supported by the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics, which is funded by the Department for Education. I pay tribute to Debbie Morgan and Charlie Stripp of the NCETM for their brilliant work over many years in improving the teaching of arithmetic and maths in our primary schools, and more recently in our secondary schools.

Results from the trends in international mathematics and science study 2019 showed that our year 5 and year 9 pupils continued to perform above the international averages in maths and science. That included a significant improvement in maths for our year 5 pupils, taking us to our highest ever score. This year also saw the roll-out of the first regular multiplication tables check on year 4 pupils. Knowing one’s tables by heart, up to 12 times 12, is essential for more complex maths involving the application of fractions and algebra, where instant retrieval of numbers is so important. I will resist asking any of my hon. Friends and hon. Members their times table questions now—I have had that done to me too many times.

Post 16, ensuring more students are studying maths beyond GCSE is a fundamental aim. Maths continues to be the most popular A-level subject, with 87,000 students taking it in 2022, up from 69,800 in 2010. Further maths entries at A-level have also risen, from 10,800 in 2010 to over 14,000 in 2022. But there is more to do, particularly to ensure that students from under-represented groups, as referred to by the right hon. Member for East Ham, are participating in the subject. That is why the Department continues to fund the advanced maths support programme, which provides high-quality professional development and online resources for teachers to support schools and colleges to expand their post-16 maths curriculum. Over 3,000 state-funded schools have participated in the programme since its launch in 2018.

As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Government would like to see more students studying core maths qualifications designed for sixth-formers who are not studying maths at A-level, but who wish to continue to study maths. That will prepare those students for the mathematical demands of university study and employment. More than 12,000 students took such qualifications last year, but there is more to do to raise awareness and encourage their take-up.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

It was the Government’s ambition that the great majority of students in the 16 to 18 range would study maths in some form—mostly core maths. Does that remain the Government’s ambition, and how long does the Minister think it is likely to take to achieve that ambition?

[Nick Gibb]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that is the Government’s aim. I think we will have more to say on this issue in the coming months, because it is essential in an advanced economy such as Britain that more young people are studying maths—even those like me, who did well at maths O-level but did not go on to study it at sixth form because I was studying history, economics and English. I now wish that I had taken at least some post-16 qualification in maths. More young people would benefit from that, so it continues to be the Government’s objective.

To help tackle the challenges, the advanced maths support programme is rolling out a national team of specialist core maths advisors to support participation in core maths and to develop expertise and best practice. Their role will be to support schools and colleges to establish core maths provision, and to provide continuing professional development and dedicated support. The advanced maths support programme also provides free maths resources for teachers and students. The Department is supporting schools and colleges with additional funding through the advanced maths premium, which is a £600 incentive payment per student and per qualification to boost growth in level 3 qualifications in schools.

In science, the Department funds a range of programmes, including the Stimulating Physics Network, which offers tailored support to schools to increase the rates of progression to physics A-level and the uptake of physics among girls. As of October 2022, 299 continuing professional development days have been delivered. The Isaac Physics programme is designed to increase the number of students, particularly from typically under-represented backgrounds, studying physics in higher education, and it serves about 80% of schools. In 2022, there were a total of 35,800 A-level physics entries—an increase from 27,800 in 2010.

The right hon. Gentleman and I can agree that we need all students to be competent and digitally literate to succeed in the digital age. The computing curriculum introduced in September 2014 provides pupils with the broad knowledge they need to specialise later—for example, in computer programming and AI—from key stage 1 to key stage 4. It also facilitates further study at A-level, and on to degree level and other post-16 options. England was one of the first G20 countries to place coding in the primary curriculum, introducing pupils to writing computer programmes and how computer networks operate. Computer science was one of the fastest growing GCSE subjects between 2013 and 2019, and we are confident that our spending on improving computing education will inspire more pupils to take the subject at GCSE.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the funding of mathematical sciences research. Research in mathematical sciences is key for the advancement of all areas of science and technology, and it is a vital area of science in itself. An additional £124 million has been committed to mathematical sciences, on top of between £25 million and £30 million a year for grants, fellowships and studentships, which UKRI’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council has always invested in this area. Absorbing any additional uplift to mathematical sciences into core budgets would require significant reductions in other engineering and physical sciences disciplines. That would reduce critical capabilities in disciplines such as engineering and information communications technology, which, alongside mathematical sciences, are key foundations of the UK’s ambitions in areas such as net zero and AI.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

This commitment of £300 million—£60 million a year over five years—was given in a blaze of publicity by the then Prime Minister in January 2020. Surely the Minister is not telling us that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said something that was not true.

[Nick Gibb]

What I am saying is that this funding is not ringfenced. Rather than ringfenced budgets addressing single priorities, UKRI aims to create a portfolio of investments where each pound contributes to delivering multiple priorities, providing much better value for money and leveraging the benefits of UKRI as an integrated research and innovation funder. In this context, UKRI is looking for opportunities to support foundational mathematical research across its entire portfolio.

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the issue of teachers in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. The Government are ensuring that all schools have access to highly skilled teachers. Teaching remains an attractive and fulfilling profession and the number of teachers remains high, with more than 465,000 working in state-funded schools across the country—24,000 more than in 2010. The Department has made substantial incentives available to attract the brightest individuals to teach high-demand subjects, including a £27,000 tax-free bursary in chemistry, computing, maths and physics, and prestigious scholarships in those subjects worth £29,000. There is also substantial continuous professional development for new and existing teaching staff through the early career framework and a new suite of national professional qualifications.

In conclusion, I hope that this Chamber will understand how committed the Government are to science and to ensuring that all pupils have the chance to succeed.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I thank the Minister for giving way one final time. I just want to go back to the question of the £300 million. Does he accept that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, absolutely clearly said that the £300 million was for research in mathematical sciences? It was ringfenced in his announcement. Surely that commitment should be honoured?

[Nick Gibb]

The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I have made the point that UKRI has an un-ringfenced approach in how it allocates its investments. It is important to allow that institution discretion to determine how it allocates its funding. Of course, fundamental foundational research in mathematical sciences goes right across all the disciplines that UKRI oversees.

The Department continues to deliver substantial spending on maths, digital and technical education, and to increase the take-up and better teaching of STEM subjects in schools. We are clear that the acquisition of knowledge is the basic building block of education to which all pupils should have fair access. A knowledge-based curriculum can stimulate critical thinking—a skill that can be acquired only through the teaching of solid subject content. The Government are steadfast in maintaining our position as a world leader in scientific research, and are committed to ensuring a pipeline of knowledge and technical understanding to provide the UK with a highly expert workforce for the future.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Minister. My son is a mathematics student, so I found that particularly interesting. For the record, 12 times 12 is 144.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the contribution of the mathematical sciences to society.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

Bhopal Gas Explosion Investigations

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

14:30

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered potential UK support for investigations into the Bhopal gas explosion.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank right hon. and hon. Members who are here to contribute for their interest in raising awareness of the tragedy and, most importantly, for campaigning for justice for the victims and survivors. I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for India (trade and investment) and the secretary of the Indo-British all-party parliamentary group.

As hon. Members know, 38 years ago next month, the greatest industrial disaster in history occurred in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, where a Union Carbide plant leaked 27 tonnes of the deadly gas methyl isocyanate. None of the six safety systems designed to contain such a leak was adequate or operational, allowing the gas to spread throughout the city of Bhopal. The aftermath was catastrophic: up to 10,000 people died in the first 72 hours of the leak; over half a million people were exposed to the gas; 25,000 people died as a result of gas exposure; 150,000 chronically ill survivors remain; and an estimated 100,000 people have been exposed to contaminated water. By 2002, Greenpeace reported that 150,000 victims were chronically ill, with—even at that point—one person dying every two days.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and thank him for doing so. The Bhopal gas disaster is history’s worst industrial catastrophe: 25,000 people were killed or died later from their injuries. As he pointed out, approximately 120,000 to 150,000 people remain chronically ill, with no hope of recovery. Does he agree that, rather than being betrayed and ignored, after 38 long years victims and their families deserve justice, accountability and proper compensation?

[Navendu Mishra]

Those figures are staggering, but several organisations have disputed them, saying that they are probably much higher in reality. Thirty-eight years is a very long time. I am 33 years of age; I was born in 1989—years after the gas leak. I fully agree with my hon. Friend’s point.

After the disaster it took almost five years for Union Carbide, in a partial settlement with the Indian Government, to pay out to some of the victims. The $470 million agreed resulted in 93% of claimants being awarded the equivalent of £380 each for what, in reality, are life-changing injuries. Over 38 years, that amounts to a measly and unjust 5p a day. The victims were not consulted during the settlement discussions and, understandably, many felt cheated by the compensation.

Although it may seem far-fetched, it appears that corporations value a Bhopali survivor’s life 100 times less than the life of an Alaskan seabird, because in 1989 —the same year as the partial settlement—Exxon spent $51,000 on the rehabilitation of each bird affected by its oil disaster.

The Dow Chemical Company, which is the parent company of Union Carbide, has for too long evaded its responsibility to the victims and survivors. Even before the explosion, the factory had been dumping toxic waste on the site and at nearby solar evaporation ponds, poisoning the water supply; and, after a cost-cutting spree from managers, old and faulty safety equipment was issued, and safety training cut from six months to two weeks. In addition, the safety training manuals were in English. It does not take a genius to work out that many people would not understand English in a state where the majority of people are Hindi speakers. Then again, that complete lack of awareness was evident when, only 19 years ago, Dow’s public affairs officer described the $500 payment in the 1989 payout as

“real good for an Indian.”

That is a disgusting attitude.

Today we are still campaigning for justice for the victims and survivors. Groups such as Action for Bhopal, the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, the trade union Unison, the British TUC, and Indian civil society and trade unions, have all called for compensation, environmental remediation, medical care and research, and support for the victims.

In 2013, Unison welcomed survivors of Bhopal to its national delegate conference, and I thank Unison for standing up for the victims. Several trade union members were killed in the Bhopal tragedy. If their concerns had been listened to by management, the leak might not have happened.

I place on the record the name of Mr Ashraf Mohammad Khan. He died horribly after being drenched in phosgene in an event just a few years before the 1984 tragedy. The safety systems at the plant were not only incredibly poor; they were virtually non-existent and accidents with fatal consequences took place earlier in the 1980s.

In this House, the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has not gone unnoticed in the historic campaign to raise awareness of this tragedy. I am also aware that the right hon. Tessa Jowell, the late Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, was also supportive of the survivors and victims.

Sadly, despite the fact that it has been conceded that this was “a terrible tragedy” and one that continues to affect the citizens of Bhopal to this day, in written parliamentary questions that I tabled earlier this year the UK Government’s abdication of responsibility for the victims of this tragedy was plain to see. Indeed, what is more disappointing is that the Minister who responded claimed that responsibility for remediation rests with the Indian authorities, when it is clear that it lies with the Dow Chemical Company. It is very disappointing that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office seems to be parroting the lines of Dow’s public relations department.

In 2012, when we were celebrating the sporting expertise of nations from across the globe at the Olympics in London, the current Chancellor, who was then the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, signed off on Dow sponsoring a fabric wrap around the Olympic stadium at a cost of £7 million. I hope the Minister here today can explain why. Surely the Government agree that companies that abuse human rights that have failed to redress abuses for which they are responsible must be held to account and made to repair the harm they have caused, rather than being rewarded with highly profitable contracts and prestigious sponsorship agreements. Alternatively, is it the case that the current Government do not want to understand the plight of the victims and survivors?

Some people have wrongly alleged that this case is all but settled and that the pay-off in 1989 dealt with this monumental tragedy. However, it is far from “case closed” when justice continues to be evaded. In 1991, just two years after the settlement, a US Supreme Court order reinstated section 304B criminal charges against a dozen accused, which included Union Carbide. Over 30 years ago, Indian courts declared Union Carbide a “proclaimed absconder” for its failure to attend trial.

Since 2001, Dow has been issued with six summons and to this day it has still not appeared. India has since filed a curative petition in its Supreme Court to remedy what it termed “a gross miscarriage” of justice and perpetration of irredeemable injustice being suffered by the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy. The petition argues that civil compensation has been based on mortality and morbidity figures that were completely incorrect and far removed from reality. We await the next hearing on this tragedy early next year.

Before I secured this debate, the FCDO asked me whether I wanted a meeting to discuss the specific issues relating to the tragedy that I wanted to explore, so I will now directly raise those issues with the Minister.

As the Government continue to negotiate a trade agreement with India, which I of course welcome, we must not see our ties as being wholly about shared business interests, but about our shared responsibilities. Our responsibility in the face of this disaster, which took place 38 years ago, is to try to obtain justice for the victims and their families. That includes lobbying Dow to provide unpublished findings of all studies on the effect of methyl isocyanate on living systems, and to provide unpublished findings of investigations into the soil and groundwater in and around the Bhopal factory.

Additionally, Dow previously accepted liability for asbestos claims against Union Carbide in the USA predating the merger with Dow. When Dow settled a suit on behalf of Union Carbide in 2002, $7.16 trillion was wiped off Dow’s share price.

Given that Dow has offices in Britain, could the Minister—not civil servants, but the Minister—request a meeting with Dow executives to ask why there is this disparity between accepting liabilities in the USA and not accepting them in India? Does Dow value the life of American victims differently to how it values Indian victims?

In 2011, the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment published an article and video by two British environmental scientists, which suggested that double-blind sampling between Indian and European laboratories and eventual site clean-up works could be the way forward. However, they noted that such work would require high-level political support. Therefore, having abolished the Department for International Development and slashed the aid budget, will this Government be interested in remediating this historic injustice and providing the required political support?

Before I end, I pay tribute to Mr Rajkumar Keswani, the Bhopali journalist of the Jansatta daily newspaper, who raised the alarm about the Union Carbide plant before the leak, but was ridiculed. Between 1982 and 1984, he wrote several articles detailing the poor safety standards at the plant. If he had been listened to, this grave tragedy might have been averted.

I also thank Mr Nigel Smith, my good friend from my constituency of Stockport, who has been supporting Bhopali victims and survivors for many decades. It is now for Union Carbide and Dow to accept the “polluter pays” principle, which is adhered to by both India and the United States. Neither the Union of India nor the state government of Madhya Pradesh should bear any burden for this tragedy. Rather, Dow should front up all the financial burden and costs for the purpose of environmental clean-up and remediation, as well as the medical treatment of not only the victims but the survivors and their families.

Since the onset of the pandemic, evidence shows that the death rate of Bhopal survivors due to covid-19 is 6.5 times higher than those not exposed to the deadly gas. No one can say, therefore, that this disaster does not continue to blight the lives of so many. To Members across the House, who live thousands of miles from where the tragedy unfolded, it may seem remote, but for the victims, their children and families, whose lives and livelihoods have been affected by the events of the evening of 2 December 1984, today is important, because it should be the start of our country’s contribution to the campaign for justice for the victims and survivors. I hope the Minister can assure all of us.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. Several Back Benchers want to speak, so I will not impose a time limit. We then have three Front Benchers. I want to remind the Minister to leave some time for Navendu Mishra to wind up.

14:40

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing this important debate, and by putting on record thanks to my union, Unison, for all its work to support the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal and the victims and survivors of that devastating incident.

That tragedy—the world’s greatest industrial disaster—exposed half a million people to toxic gas, with around 25,000 deaths to date as a result of that exposure. I also commend Rajkumar Keswani, who tried tirelessly to highlight the site’s health and safety dangers well before the tragedy took place. I do not want to reiterate what my hon. Friend has already mentioned but, suffice it to say, all this should not have happened: the deaths of thousands of people from immediate exposure to the chemical gas from the Union Carbide factory; the tens of thousands who lost their lives in indescribable circumstances since; and the hundreds of thousands suffering to this day with debilitating and deadly illnesses and diseases. Those responsible must be brought to justice.

This is a case of criminal corporate negligence, aided in the evasion of scrutiny and justice by Governments that protect profits and power over the people they are supposed to serve. The strength and bravery of campaigners in the pursuit of justice against the odds have been incredible. They should have the support and solidarity of every Member who stands for truth, justice and accountability.

Although the chemical explosion happened in 1984, nearly four decades ago, this living, breathing crisis is still creating new victims. It has created untold suffering for those who suffered the immediate impact, their children and their grandchildren, with the impact on future generations casting a dark shadow over the community. Rates of cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, autism and severe learning difficulties have exploded, and the situation is getting worse, not better. Hundreds of thousands are still suffering in pain, through cancer, stillbirths, miscarriages, lung and heart disease, and the slow and painful deaths of the families and communities, with no respite, support, compensation or justice.

The poison is still pumping through the veins of the survivors and their children. Even now, decades later, the mortality rate for gas-exposed victims is still 28% higher than average. Victims of the gas are twice as likely to die from cancers, lung disease and TB; three times more likely to die from kidney diseases; and more than 60% more likely to have serious illnesses. Rates of infertility, stillbirths, abortions, early menopause, and fertility have been disastrous, with immense social repercussions.

Those long-term health impacts are devastating, yet the meagre compensation paid out to victims after years of campaigning, amounts to little more than three and a half years of healthcare bills. Not one single arrest has been made. No one has been forced to help alleviate the ongoing environmental destruction, and the communities there are still forced to live in poisoned surroundings—forced to consume contaminated water, breathe poisoned air and live in areas still covered in toxic chemicals. No clean-up operation has ever been attempted.

Of the nine Indian officials who were convicted in 2010 for their role, none has served any time behind bars. No one from Union Carbide has ever been jailed for the gross negligence that led to the gas explosion, and the company has repeatedly refused to face justice and answer its court summonses. We all know that justice delayed is justice denied.

I will end by paying tribute to the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, and to everyone who has campaigned for a just response and settlement for the victims, and taken up their cause. Appropriate compensation—at a minimum of $8,000—must be made to each Bhopal survivor. Union Carbide must finally attend the criminal court case in Bhopal district that it has dodged for nearly a decade. The companies involved must hand over their findings and all studies on the effects of the methyl isocyanate, and the results of their investigations into the contamination of soil and groundwater in and around the Bhopal factory.

The Indian national and state governments must provide free healthcare to survivors, and fund research into the long-term health damage caused by exposure to toxic gas and contaminated groundwater. They must provide living costs for the survivors and widows of the disaster. Union Carbide must also take responsibility for cleaning the remaining hazardous waste, in line with international standards, and provide compensation for environmental health damages.

That is the bare minimum that we should be demanding for the survivors of the tragedy, whose lives have been torn apart. Criminal negligence has destroyed their lives and those of their children, grandchildren and future generations. They have already waited nearly 40 years. We cannot allow justice to be denied any longer.

14:47

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on securing this debate. Bhopal has been described as an environmental disaster; I think it is actually the most appalling environmental crime in modern history. As has been said, tens of thousands were killed and hundreds of thousands have been affected. Lives were lost, and others were curtailed by terrible consequences—ill health, disability and congenital disabilities.

I remember when the first reports were coming into this country on Bhopal in 1984. It took time for us to become fully aware of the scale of what happened, but I remember the shock, and then the horror, ripping through my local community. As the figures began to be reported, we learned of the initial 10,000 deaths. The other facts that then came through were particularly shocking: half the pregnant women in the area aborting, and the wells and streams that more than 100,000 people depended on for drinking water contaminated with cancer-causing chemicals. As has been said, the figure bandied about recently is that the range is anything between 350,000 people to maybe 500,000.

For me, it soon became obvious that there was no doubt about how and why the event happened. Union Carbide, now owned by Dow, has, I think, been exposed for what it did, because it was about the pursuit of profit despite the consequences for the lives of its workers and local community. Despite all the warnings that we now know about from its own staff, despite all the individual accidents that took place where there was loss of life on site, and—most damningly—despite the knowledge of its own experts, the company pressed ahead with operations, using appalling and unsafe systems, until the inevitable happened and the disaster occurred. When lives are knowingly put at extreme risk, and lost as a consequence, the description for that is social murder. I believe that is what happened in this case.

What has compounded this criminal act is the way in which the company—Dow Chemical, as it now is—has evaded all legal and moral responsibility. It has failed to take the necessary remedial action to compensate the victims, restore the safe environment—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport recommended—and provide the care and health treatment that those victims desperately needed to address the trauma that they suffered. I find it disgraceful that Dow, having committed this corporate criminal act, has been allowed to walk away with virtual impunity. As has been said, the compensation that has been provided is trivial to the extent of being an insult to the victims of this crime, particularly for those who have lost relatives. We need a new strategy to bring this corporate mass murderer to justice.

For too long, Dow has used its influence to evade justice and to buy its way into respectability in many circles. The sponsorship, or the wraparound, of the Olympics was one of those exercises. I spoke at the demonstrations in 2012 when constituents and others came together to appeal to the Government not to allow Dow to buy its way into that form of respectability. Unfortunately, we were not listened to. I hope that we will be now, because I think we need a new, determined strategy for justice. We know that the company will be in the Supreme Court in January next year, but we cannot rely on the Court to exercise the full extent of recompense that is needed.

I follow the line taken by my hon. Friend: we need compensation that is realistic to match the damage and the suffering caused. We need funding for the ongoing medical and social care needed by the victims, and, unfortunately because of the congenital impact of the poisoning, by many of their children as well. We also need to undertake economic and social rehabilitation of the area; there should be proper funding so that people can have a decent quality of life, and the local economy needs to be restored so that they have jobs. Above all, local people are calling for the environmental remediation of their community—restoring the environment from the effects of the pollution that occurred so that the area will be environmentally safe for generations to come.

We must say to Dow that unless it accepts its responsibility, and works with the Indian Government and representatives of the Bhopal victims to develop and fund this strategy for justice, it should be totally isolated. Part of that means that the Government in this country should ensure that the company will not receive any benefits by way of contracts, tax reliefs or Government grants. The UK Government have a role in calling out this perpetrator: it should be named and shamed, but action needs to take place to ensure that it fulfils its responsibilities.

Finally, I pay tribute to Rajkumar Keswani. There is a wonderful programme on BBC iPlayer at the moment, and I hope that others watching the debate will listen to it. It demonstrates the courage of the investigative journalism that exposed the truth of what happened on that fateful day 38 years ago. It was a heartbreaking tragedy, and we should not allow it to be ignored. We certainly should not allow Dow to walk away from its responsibilities to the people it has so brutally injured and murdered.

14:54

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to be involved in the debate. May I say how pleased I am to see the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) setting the scene? He asked me last week whether I would come along and participate, and as I always do when I am asked to, I do so, but I also come along because he deserves support and he secured this debate for people who have been disadvantaged in every way. It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who sets the scene so well with his knowledge of the issues. He asked all the questions to which the Minister needs to respond.

Is it 33 years ago that the Bhopal disaster took place? When we think about that length of time and how people still suffer, I tell myself this: if this happened in Stockport or Strangford, we would not stop bringing questions or statements to the House, the Chamber, the Minister—whoever they were—and the Government to get satisfaction. I fully support what the hon. Member for Stockport says, because we have a duty, as I often say, to those who perhaps do not have a voice in Bhopal, across India and in other parts of the world. In this House, we have the privilege to be Members of Parliament and to bring these issues to the Minister’s attention.

The Bhopal gas explosion has had numerous long-lasting impacts up to this very day, and others have raised that issue. The industrial disaster is considered the worst in world history, yet the suffering goes on, which is disturbing. We must support further investigations into the Bhopal gas explosion, not to finger point—it is not always about finger pointing—but to find solutions. It is about how we can help the people and doing our due diligence in this place to ensure that further events do not occur anywhere else.

The impacts of this disaster are unheard of, although Members who have spoken and those who will speak later are highlighting just how important these issues are and what we need to do. To this day, the Union Carbide plant site has never been properly cleaned up and continues to poison the 2.5 million residents of Bhopal. What country in the world would let that go on and not be responsive to try to sort it out? Union Carbide did not give one penny of litigation until 1989, and furthermore it did not alert the communities and the people to the risks of drinking water near the site. I believe that Union Carbide is greatly in the court of blame in relation to negligence and intent that led to deaths and injury.

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the ongoing care and treatment that are required, and it is important that we respond in a positive fashion through this debate. Little did residents know that the water was lethally contaminated—that was not exposed until 1999, when Greenpeace ran a series of tests. We have a process in this country that is applicable across the world, which is the “polluter pays” principle, by which the polluter takes responsibility and pays for subsequent damages. Union Carbide and its new partner company refuse point blank to clean the factory or pay a penny towards the clean-up. I know that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but what has come back on that in her discussions with the Indian Government and perhaps with other officials?

While I appreciate that this is a separate issue, the seed of “polluter pays” was initially planted with the gas explosion in 1984, and some might say that not enough has been done to initiate further support. In response to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Stockport only at the end of last month—he referred to it, and I will quote it—the FCDO said:

“Union Carbide and DfID programmes ended in 2013 and 2015, respectively. The FCDO has had no direct engagement with the State Government on the gas tragedy since 2015.”

Wow, that is a real disappointment. I am not pointing the finger or criticising the Minister or the Government, but perhaps this debate will initiate the follow-on that the hon. Member for Stockport and other Members here would wish to have.

In answer to another parliamentary question, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said that the Bhopal tragedy

“continues to affect the citizens of Bhopal to this day.”

If it does, we need to engage again with renewed fervour and pressure to try to get the answers we are after.

It is widely acknowledged that while there has been instrumental support, through aid and healthcare services to Madhya Pradesh, the fact of the matter is that livelihoods are still damaged today. Furthermore, there has been ongoing discussion as to where accountability lies. We are aware that in 2001, the Dow Chemical Company bought the company. I therefore believe Dow inherited its legal liabilities along with its assets. It is not as if ownership can just be swapped and then everything just drops—it is much more than that. There is a moral case that must be answered.

There are lasting impacts for the second and even the third generation of children who have been born into that environment. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to those who were pregnant losing their babies. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) also referred to people being affected by cerebral palsy, autism, muscular dystrophy and severe learning difficulties. I believe accountability must be delivered for those people. We can only pray that this does not prolong the devastation for further generations of new-born children, with long-lasting impacts on their parents.

To conclude, I am mindful of how important this debate is. We have a responsibility to ensure those at fault are held to account for the devastations that the people of Bhopal are facing, and have been facing for over 33 years. There is no doubt potential for our Government to be in direct contact with the state Government of Madhya Pradesh again. If there was one thing I would ask of the Minister, it would be that. I say this honestly: I know that the Minister will take on board our requests and try to respond in a way that will satisfy us.

I see it from a different point of view, but it is the same issue and the same principle applies. We speak up for those who have no voice. This debate is an opportunity to do that, and to ask for a response from the Minister that can give us some assurance that those people are not forgotten. We are all too aware of the many legalities surrounding who pays the price, and who picks up the pieces. However, for some time—33 years—the only people paying the price have been those living in Bhopal. I look forward to seeing potential progress on this. I hope the FCDO and the Minister will take the subsequent steps to lobby those responsible to do their moral duty and to sort it out.

15:02

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing this important debate. Despite the Bhopal gas explosion occurring almost 40 years ago at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, hundreds of thousands of Bhopalis are still living in its long shadow, unable to move on with their lives with dignity and justice. In addition to the 3,000 people who died almost immediately, there have been a further 20,000 deaths and 120,000 cases of people suffering from health problems, including severe deformities and blindness as a result of the toxic seepage into the surrounding area from the plant.

Since the disaster, survivors have been plagued with an epidemic of cancers, menstrual disorders—including the early onset of the menopause—and what one doctor described as “monstrous births”. Thousands of Bhopalis cannot work, physically move or study, and are living a miserable existence without any surviving family members. The apparent root cause of the accident was that the plant had not been properly maintained following the cessation of pesticide production, with tonnes of toxic chemicals remaining on site and left completely unmaintained and unchecked. In reality the root cause was greed.

It was not until 1989 that Union Carbide, in a partial settlement with the Indian Government, agreed to pay out the equivalent of £400 million in compensation. The victims were not consulted in the settlement discussions, and many felt cheated by their compensation of between £250 and £450 per person. That equates to five years’ worth of medical expenses. Today, those who were awarded compensation are hardly better off, because with such paltry sums, over the long term, that amounts to just 5p a day. The cost of a cup of tea in India for a lifetime of unimaginable suffering, all while Union Carbide, now Dow Chemicals, effectively sought to whitewash their crimes by sponsoring, as we have heard, the London 2012 Olympics. The company operates in nearly every country in the world, including the UK, with a market capitalisation of nearly £34 billion, but it failed to atone for its corporate crimes and has yet to pay the Bhopali people so that they can obtain justice and live with dignity.

The final figure agreed five years after the disaster was only 15% of the original settlement that the Government of India had requested. The amount was far below international compensation standards, as well as those set by the Indian Railways for accidents, which was the standard Union Carbide had said that it would use. In 1991, the local government in Bhopal charged the American, Warren Anderson, Union Carbide’s chief executive at the time of the disaster, with manslaughter, yet neither the US nor the Indian Government of the day were interested in his extradition to face trial after he fled India.

The Union Carbide Corporation was charged with culpable homicide, a criminal charge with no upper penalty limit. The charges have never been resolved as Union Carbide—now Dow Chemicals, of course—has refused to appear before an Indian court. Dow Chemicals says that the legal case was resolved in 1989 when Union Carbide settled with the Indian Government for the equivalent of £400 million and that all responsibility for the factory rests with the local state government, which now owns the site. To this day, despite requests to appear in court from the Indian Government and the compensation that may well be regarded by some as an admission of guilt, the company and its chief executives have not faced criminal charges and Dow’s share price keeps on rising.

In 2010, eight Indian employees were found guilty of neglecting to adequately maintain the factory once it was not profitable and it was that neglect that led to the explosion, as we know. They were ordered to pay just less than £1,500 each, which campaign groups have said is an insult and simply pocket change for the executives. On that day, Hamida Bi stood weeping. She said:

“Nobody knows how we suffered experiencing death so closely everyday…the rich and influential have wronged us. We lost our lives and they can’t spend a day in jail?”

Corporate America is running away from its responsibility to protect profits and its vast fortunes overseas. That is exactly what former Carbide director, Joseph Geoghan, implied when he spoke about Warren Anderson in hiding:

“Extradition in a case like this would place in jeopardy any owner or senior executive of an American corporation with significant interests in foreign enterprises anywhere in the world…The chilling effect on American investment abroad cannot be overstated.”

We cannot allow corporate profits or US interventionism to get in the way of the fresh investigations and reparations that the Bhopali people are calling for. Under international law, they have a right to redress and rehabilitation for harm done by companies that operate across borders. We must therefore assert and uphold the rule of law. We cannot allow class wars, or discrimination against workers or the working class in Bhopal, India, to get in the way of calls for justice. If this corporate manslaughter had taken place in Surrey or upstate New York, compensation would have been significant and justice would have been seen to be done. We cannot value the lives of people overseas in Bhopal less than lives here in the UK.

The disparity in treatment between industrial accidents here in the west and over there in the global south must not be allowed to stand. Because of its long-standing history with India and, of course, its long-standing history with the US, behind whose borders Dow is currently hiding, the UK is in a unique position to explore remedies for Bhopal survivors. As we know, the UK is deep in negotiation with India on an important trade deal, so both countries have an opportunity to explore whether the UK is in a position to assist India. In January, the Indian Government will argue for additional compensation from Dow and Union Carbide before India’s Supreme Court, to secure the adequate, timely remedies so cruelly denied to Bhopal survivors for so long.

As well as the actions that have already been proposed, an independent fact-finding mission to Bhopal is required if the UK Parliament’s approach is to be most effective. Such a mission would re-examine the realities on the ground, unpick the legal and political obstacles and recommend ways forward. It would be the first time a member of the international community had stepped up to intervene in what has so far been treated as an adversarial dispute. It is not an adversarial dispute between two parties; it is a situation that has only prolonged the suffering of survivors. The tragedy of Bhopal is one of the gravest miscarriages of justice of our time. Given our two countries’ unique history, the UK must move to morally correct that injustice.

15:13

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my good friend, the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for bringing forward the debate. It has been insightful, inquisitive and incredibly important.

Let there be no doubt: the Bhopal disaster is one of the deadliest workplace disasters in industrial history, yet the lessons are yet to be learned and actions yet to be experienced. The devastation inflicted when the Union Carbide insecticide plant experienced a major gas leak nearly 30 years ago starkly and tragically illustrates the consequences of profit and corporate interests being prioritised over human and environmental safety. Furthermore, it highlights the inadequacy of corporate responsibility and the impotence of national Governments in holding those responsible to account. As a result, the Bhopal disaster victims are still waiting for justice.

As we have heard, nearly 4,000 were killed instantly when deadly levels of poisonous methyl isocyanate leaked into highly populated areas of Bhopal, and over 16,000 died subsequently. Estimates suggest that, in total, 600,000 people were exposed to the highly toxic gas, and they have since reported suffering a series of respiratory and other health issues. There have also been serious and life-changing birth defects in their children. The mortality rate for gas-exposed victims is still 28% higher than average, and that is after four decades. They are twice as likely to die of cancers, diseases of the lung and tuberculosis, three times as likely to die from kidney diseases and two thirds more likely to have illnesses.

To this day, the site of the incident is heavily contaminated and continues to affect those who live in the vicinity. Amnesty International states that more than 100,000 people—that is almost the size of the city I represent—live with contaminated water and supplies and are exposed to the chemicals. They experience a range of health problems and chronic illnesses, including cancer, stillbirths, congenital disabilities, miscarriages, and lung and heart disease. Shockingly, most of the gas victims seeking treatment continue to be classed as “temporarily injured” to deny them enhanced compensation for permanent injury. It is vital that these victims receive the justice they deserve, including compensation, continued welfare support and the decontamination of this site, and we must support anything that helps achieve that.

There is no doubt that the behaviour of Union Carbide at the time of the disaster and since has been shameful. After the disaster, it blamed the workers, and in 1989 a compensation deal ended up with most victims receiving just 25,000 rupees—roughly £250—while some received nothing at all. The settlement in 1989, which saw $470 million go to the Indian Government, has been widely panned, yet despite that and despite successive legal challenges over subsequent decades, not a further rupee has been forthcoming.

The plant’s current owners—Dow Chemical—need to rectify the environmental damage by properly disposing of the toxic waste. They also need to properly compensate the victims and their families and to provide them with safe drinking water and free medical care. However, Dow Chemical has attempted to absolve itself of any liability and has instead suggested that the Indian Government should take responsibility. We have heard about Dow Chemical from each speaker today, and it is shocking to think, as the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) mentioned, that if this were in upstate New York, Surrey or Scotland we would be utterly horrified. Yet, after nearly 40 years, we are having to bring this case to light again today.

Both the US and Indian Governments have been accused of working against the victims by kowtowing to these corporate interests. On six separate occasions between 2014 and 2019 the US Department of Justice has refused to pass on the summons for Dow Chemical to appear in the Bhopal court on criminal charges of sheltering a fugitive—their subsidiary company, Union Carbide. That has been seen by campaigners as a direct violation of the treaty of mutual legal assistance between the US and India and has ensured that Dow Chemical has never appeared in court to answer the criminal charges. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts as to why that is.

Furthermore, classified emails released as part of WikiLeaks showed that, in 2010, when the Indian Government pushed to reopen the compensation settlement for Bhopal victims, Robert Hormats, who served as President Obama’s Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment, met the then Indian Cabinet Minister Montek Ahluwalia to communicate that it would

“look really bad to reopen a settlement”.

The Indian Government have been accused of deliberately suppressing any research that proves the long-term systemic or genetic damage caused by the gas explosion to protect the corporations involved.

One recent, rare study authorised by Government medical body the Indian Council of Medical Research found that between 2016 and 2017 almost 10% of babies born to gas-exposed mothers had birth defects, compared with 1.3% born to mothers with no exposure. However, the study was subsequently discredited by the ICMR, which ordered it not to be published or disclosed.

While on a visit to the US in 2015, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met officials from Dow Chemical, yet Dharmendra Kumar Madan, the Joint Secretary at the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers, which was responsible for Bhopal, refused to comment, simply stating:

“I am not concerned with this issue.”

My message to the Minister responsible for chemicals is that this is not going away. We are not going to let up. This has to be urgently and properly addressed in every way.

Satinath Sarangi, the founder of the Sambhavna Trust, which runs the medical clinic that has treated over 300,000 Bhopal victims, put it bluntly:

“From the beginning the government has protected the corporations at the cost of human lives”.

Every year that passes is another year that the core issues facing the survivors of the Bhopal gas explosion remain unaddressed. I pay tribute to the organisations in India, internationally and here that have been relentless in their pursuit of justice and in ensuring that this tragedy has not fallen off the radar. I commend the work and solidarity of Action for Bhopal, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Hazards campaign, in campaigning on this issue to see the victims finally receive closure.

The SNP supports any action from the UK Government to seek justice for those affected, and we seek further details about what plans, if any, they have to support investigations in the pursuit of redress for the victims. There are a number of actions that they can take, and some excellent suggestions have already been made. For example, no clean-up operation of the chemical contamination around the former factory has been conducted—it is shocking that there has not been any clean-up in 40 years. The UK Government might look to aid that process by providing expertise, funding and resources to test and clear up the site. Furthermore, they can seek answers from their allies in India and the US on why they continue to block further investigations and further compensation claims, given the scale and impact of the tragedy.

It goes without saying, nearly 40 years later, that things should never have got to this stage. No individual, corporation or Government should think that they can walk away from this tragedy without any accountability and responsibility. This is not something that can be wilfully ignored and forgotten about. The people of Bhopal suffer the consequences day after day, year after year and now generation after generation. They must have justice, and the UK Government must play their part.

15:21

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

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. As my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) said, there is no question but that the industrial disaster in 1984 was a catastrophe of epic proportions, with even the most conservative estimates acknowledging that thousands of people, mainly from poorer, informal settlements around the factory, were killed instantly. Many, many more families and their children were harmed, and the local economy and environment were fatally harmed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) said, countless more victims were injured or saw their lives altered by the lingering effects of exposure, with the Indian Government in 2012 putting the number of severely affected survivors at a staggering 33,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said, justice delayed is justice denied.

Naturally the communities involved, and the Indian people more broadly, have demanded justice and relief in order to begin to come to terms with the loss of life and the environmental damage that continue to leave a daunting legacy over the community. Their pain will continue until true justice has been delivered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, who is chair of the all-party parliamentary group, has taken on the mantle of supporting the victims of this appalling tragedy. His attempts to secure redress for the survivors and the bereaved, both today in his remarks and in a series of written questions, deserve praise from Members across the House, and I know that the Minister will have heard him. Her predecessors have responded to the parliamentary questions he has tabled, and I wish to leave as much time as possible for her to respond in full. I also recognise the role that the international trade union movement, including British Unison, have played in exposing this tragic industrial accident.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, there has been a disproportionate impact on women victims of this terrible environmental accident. Half the women who were pregnant at the time of the catastrophe lost their unborn babies. He made the important point that we have still not seen the environmental degradation put right, let alone the provision of full financial recompense and of health and social care services commensurate with the damage that occurred as a result of this tragedy.

What is the UK Government’s response? I have three questions for the Minister. First, what dialogue has she had with her opposite number in the Government of India regarding UK support for them to bring to justice those responsible for the ongoing effects of this disaster? We should be an ally in supporting India in pursuing justice in this cause.

Secondly, if required by the Government of India, will the UK support further investigations into the health impacts and the cause of, and culpability for, the explosion? Will they support further efforts to alleviate the daily suffering and the need for medical, health and social care services?

My final question is an important one for future generations and has been debated in full this afternoon. What dialogue has the Minister had on supporting the Indian Government’s claim to make good the environment of Bhopal to international standards, in order to compensate people for this dreadful catastrophe?

15:24

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

I thank the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing the debate and raising awareness, nearly four decades on, of the brutal impact of the Bhopal disaster on so many. I am grateful to him and to all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions, which could not have been clearer on the immediate and long-term impacts of the Union Carbide factory gas explosion.

For many of us—the older ones in the room—the disaster at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal is seared into our memories as one of the worst industrial accidents in history. As a teenager, I remember watching television footage and being genuinely incredulous at the failures of industry and aware, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, of the need to help—in a very simple way—those so shockingly affected.

On 3 December 1984 this gas leak from a pesticide plant killed 3,800 people immediately. It has left up to half a million more with significant illness and has caused premature deaths. I thank colleagues for setting out many of those cases in brutal detail; it is important that they are heard and repeated so that we all understand exactly what the impacts of the disaster were.

The responsibility to respond to the tragic disaster has always lain with Union Carbide, an American company, and with the Government of India. Investigations by the Indian authorities established at the time that substandard operating and safety procedures and lack of maintenance had led to the catastrophe. As discussed earlier, Union Carbide provided a settlement of $470 million to the Indian Government to fund the clean-up, compensate the injured, support the families of those killed and provide ongoing welfare support to those affected. Hon. Members have made clear their view that the levels of compensation and support are considered inadequate and that the lack of clearance of contamination has had a very long impact on all in those Bhopali communities. These issues remain a matter for the Indian authorities, in particular the Madhya Pradesh state government, which has had control of the site and its remediation since 1998.

The UK did not provide any additional funding or direct support to India in response to the tragedy. However, the Department for International Development, under previous Administrations, supported development in the state of Madhya Pradesh that has benefited people, including those affected by the disaster living in Bhopal. The UK Government have also worked with the government of Madhya Pradesh to provide 11,000 slum dwellers with clean water and to increase the incomes of more than 66,000 rural households in the state, including in eight affected slums in Bhopal. We also supported the Madhya Pradesh health department to improve public healthcare, which also benefited victims of the Bhopal tragedy. Our support doubled the number of births taking place in hospitals and clinics, which increased the survival chances of newborns across the state.

Union Carbide compensation ended in 2013, and DFID humanitarian programmes to the Government of India ended in 2015. Since 2015, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has had no direct engagement with the national Government or with state governments on the Bhopal tragedy, but we continued to work with the state of Madhya Pradesh from 2017 to 2021 on issues around human trafficking and the establishment of a gender resource centre. The FCDO’s poorest states inclusive growth programme currently operates in four Indian states, including Madhya Pradesh, and the UK Government invested through it to increase the incomes of over 9 million people, make financial services available to 12 million people and improve the social status of over 5 million women.

Turning to the present day, our relationship with India is central to our foreign policy tilt toward the Indo-Pacific, as India’s economic success stories continue year on year and the UK and Indian Governments strengthen their relationship through our new comprehensive strategic partnership, which we launched last year. Our 2030 road map, launched by Prime Ministers Johnson and Modi last year, is guiding our co-operation in a range of priority areas, benefiting people across both countries.

Our 1.7 million-strong Indian diaspora community provides a unique living bridge of people, commerce, ideas and culture between our countries, which is why so many colleagues closely feel the importance of the debate. We are at an advanced stage of negotiations for a comprehensive free trade agreement that will benefit all regions of the UK and India, and we are working with India to support its transition to net zero, including through a $1 billion green guarantee and the British International Investment partnership. Co-operation between our countries has global impacts, perhaps best demonstrated through the global roll-out of 1.5 billion Oxford University AstraZeneca vaccines that were produced at the Serum Institute of India.

I hope that sets out the depth of the relationship that we are building with India. The Bhopal disaster was a truly shocking tragedy that, as colleagues have set out so well, highlighted appalling shortcomings in industrial safety standards. It is absolutely right that we remember the victims and work, as many have since, to prevent similar tragedies.

[Catherine West]

Would the Minister, as a result of this very moving debate, undertake to mention it in her next interactions with her opposite member in the course of her duties and in the conversations the Government are having with India, in order to express the solidarity of the House and to be an ally in seeking justice for those affected?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The hon. Lady pre-empts my next sentence. I will commit to raise with my Indian counterparts the concerns of all parliamentarians present about the need for continuing support and compensation for victims. The hon. Member for Stockport will appreciate that the UK Government cannot comment on the petition that is presently before the Indian Supreme Court, as this is a judicial matter for the Supreme Court. I can be clear, however, that we will not pursue trade to the exclusion of human rights. We regard both as important parts of the deep, mature and wide-ranging relationship that we have and are continuing to grow with India.

While the Bhopal gas leak and its terrible repercussions remain an internal matter for the Indian Government, the environment, healthcare, resilient infrastructure, economic development and the transition to net zero are all important areas of mutual interest in the UK-India partnership, which is very important to us. It is a partnership that goes from strength to strength and it is a partnership between equals, where honesty and truth are well spoken.

15:32

[Navendu Mishra]

First and foremost, this debate is about the victims and survivors, who deserve justice. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed. I am grateful to the Minister for her response, but it is disappointing that the Foreign Office seems to be parroting lines from the Dow Chemical Company and saying that Union Carbide and the Government of India are responsible for the clean-up. It is absolutely Dow Chemicals that is responsible. I also did not receive a response regarding the comments about the current Chancellor, the former Secretary of State for DCMS, who signed off on the sponsorship agreement for the London 2012 Olympics.

I welcome the trade agreement with India. The UK and India are natural partners, and the trade agreement will benefit people in my constituency and across the UK. However, we need to ensure that the agreement is about not just business ties but people-to-people links, culture, education and medical research and care—all those things.

I will finish with three questions to the Government that have not been answered. First, will the Government provide political support to achieve justice for the victims and survivors? Secondly, will they demand action from Dow Chemical in Britain, including demanding a meeting to put pressure on it to face justice in the Indian courts and provide the unpublished findings of all research conducted by Union Carbide and Dow since the disaster? Finally, will they apologise for allowing Dow Chemical to sponsor the London 2012 games, which gave Dow positive publicity and legitimacy?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered potential UK support for investigations into the Bhopal gas explosion.

15:34

Sitting suspended.

Housing Targets: Planning System

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Westminster Hall

15:14

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I will call Gordon Henderson to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered housing targets and the planning system.

This is not the first time I have raised the subject of overdevelopment in my constituency. In the last 12 years, I have done so on a number of occasions, so I will not repeat what I have said before, except to emphasise the problems that excessive housebuilding has caused my constituents. Our local roads are congested and cannot cope with the level of traffic generated by the new housing. My constituents struggle to get a GP appointment, because there are not enough doctors to service the thousands of extra people who have moved to the area. Many of our local schools are over-subscribed, and new arrivals struggle to get school places for their children.

The huge increase in housing development in my area has been driven by my local authority, Swale Borough Council, attempting to meet the top-down housing targets imposed by the Government. In past debates, successive Housing Ministers have insisted that the Government do not impose targets, and that it is up to local authorities to determine housing growth after consultation with the Planning Inspectorate, which of course is a Government quango. An example of the outcome of such consultation is that Swale Borough Council submitted its most recent local plan, which had a housing land allocation for 776 homes per year, only for the Planning Inspectorate to reject the proposal and insist that the figure should be increased to 1,048 per year.

The irony is that, despite the massive increases in housing in Swale over the past 30 years—17,000 new homes have been built in that time—developers have not once matched even the 776 figure in the past 10 years. The problem with nationally imposed mandatory housing targets is that they are arbitrary and lack supportable evidence of need. Officers and members of Swale Borough Council believe that targets should be set at local and sub-regional levels, and should take into account an area’s ability to deliver them. They believe that the housing delivery test, buffers, housing action plans and housing targets have served only to increase pressure on local authorities, rather than to deliver more housing.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate; he is making some important points. Does he agree that unless local housing targets are set according to local need, it is difficult to adequately provide the necessary infrastructure he referred to earlier—education, health and transport in particular? Will he join me in urging the Minister to consider that there should be a right of appeal for local communities against inappropriate housing applications? There is a right for the developer; there is not currently a right for communities.

[Gordon Henderson]

I could not agree more, and I will touch on one or two of those issues.

Ministers have recently made a number of encouraging remarks about scrapping mandatory top-down targets, but there is little concrete evidence to suggest that that will ever happen. The lack of clarity is causing uncertainty, which is crippling the ability of Swale—and, I am sure, other local authorities—to put together meaningful local plans. In addition to the uncertainty over targets, producing local plans is becoming much slower, because the overall process is getting more complicated. Swale Borough Council believes that the difficulties will increase with the burden of the Environment Act 2021, other emerging legislation, including the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and revised national planning guidance.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent speech. Does he agree that the Government also need to take into account the post-pandemic world? Local plans have historically been more backward-looking, but people are now working more from home, so there is less draw to come to London or the south-east more generally for good, well-paid jobs. Does he agree that the Government should look to evolve local planning processes off the back of that?

[Gordon Henderson]

Yes, I do agree. The Government should also take into account the amount of housing that has already been built in an area. There is no point expecting a local authority to deliver higher housing targets if it has already delivered 17,000 additional homes over a number of years, as is the case in my area. All we are doing is putting extra strain on the infrastructure.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue. Although it is the responsibility of the Minister, I want to express my support for the hon. Gentleman, as I always do in these debates, because we have a similar problem in Northern Ireland, where some 44,000 people are waiting for a home and 31,000 are in housing distress. The issue is massive for our constituencies. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just about houses, but about the right type of housing—housing that has no mould or damp, and that families can live in? Does he agree that when it comes to building houses, homes must be healthy and suitable to live in, to ease the pressure on housing associations, which do their very best to help?

[Gordon Henderson]

Yes, and I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman make his contribution. If he were not present for my Westminster Hall debate, I would fear that the world had come to an end; Parliament certainly would have.

It is noticeable that nothing has been done to address the problems faced by so many local authority planning departments. They face onerous new burdens with no increase or improvement in the resources available to them, partly because of a shortage of qualified planning officers. Planning resources are also inadequate at many of the statutory consultee organisations, such as the Environment Agency, Natural England, Historic England and National Highways, and that is leading to delays in providing the necessary input into local plans.

On the subject of National Highways, the agency is blocking housing developments in my patch for which planning permission has already been granted, by submitting objections on the grounds that the local road infrastructure is inadequate. However, it is inadequate because National Highways has delayed making the necessary improvements, and those planning objections are forcing Swale Borough Council to allow planning applications for other sites, because National Highways’ blocking action is suppressing delivery numbers. It is a typical Catch-22 situation. Ultimately, our local infrastructure, which includes roads, needs to keep pace with the delivery of housing, but statutory undertakers are simply failing to ensure that that happens.

The Government have also failed to prevent developers from land banking. I know of several housing developments in Swale where permission has been granted but no work has been started, and developers often sit on allocated land and then try to get permission for other sites based on the delay in housing delivery, for which they are responsible. The scandal needs urgently to be addressed, with a time limit placed on the implementation of approved schemes. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, too many loopholes allow developers to avoid delivering sufficient affordable housing because of supposed unviability.

Swale Borough Council believes that regional or sub-regional planning, such as at county level, would address cross-boundary issues, including reaching agreement on strategic planning matters such as infrastructure and housing, which the legal duty to co-operate, introduced in the Localism Act 2011, has simply not delivered. The council also believes that the way to solve the country’s housing needs is by building a new generation of large new towns across the country. The current policy is to deliver garden communities at a local level on a small or medium scale, but they are simply not large enough to deliver the major infrastructure improvements needed to sustain those communities, such as new roads, hospitals, schools, town centres and low-carbon transport systems, such as trams.

In the council’s view, eight or so major new towns across England would not only support the Government’s levelling-up agenda, but would address housing shortages, including affordable and social housing, deliver genuine place making and see developments take place at a level that benefits the whole country, without degrading locally important assets and landscapes, or placing additional burdens on already creaking local infrastructure.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate. In Aldridge-Brownhills, we are faced with a huge number of houses being built across the constituency. He makes a powerful argument why we should abolish housing targets. Local councils know best; they know what is needed and the pressure on the infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend agree that one challenge is that the construction companies that start to develop often withhold the section 106 money and the planning gain money right until the end, so local communities feel a lot of the pain before they see any gain?

[Gordon Henderson]

My right hon. Friend is right. Whoever sets the targets, whether at national or local level, when it comes to planning permission for development, there should be an insistence that the infrastructure is put in place before the housing is started. That can be done, but too often is not. I can give an example: we had a major development on the Isle of Sheppey many years ago, which subsequently led to 2,000 houses. At the time, permission was granted for only a couple of hundred, until such time as a new bridge and other new infrastructure was put in place. That has to be done far more often.

I have raised a number of issues today that are of concern to Swale Borough Council. However, the biggest collective grievance is the imposition of mandatory housing targets and the five-year land supply rule.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward the debate. My constituency neighbours his, and we in Rochester and Strood have seen the stresses and strains on local services and the planning department in order to meet unrealistic housing targets, which are particularly imposed on the south-east, where we are based. Does my hon. Friend agree that the targets should be designed at a local level, and that communities should be empowered to object to unrealistic developments that do not deliver the services that the people living in those communities demand?

[Gordon Henderson]

I do agree. It is critical that local people have a say and set the targets, because unless there is local support for something, it will never work. Looking at it cynically, we might say that many local authorities are deciding to build houses in inappropriate places because they can blame the Government for the fact that they have to meet housing targets. If it was up to local people, that would not happen. From a purely cynical point of view, it would be better to let local people do that.

[Wendy Morton]

I genuinely feel that there is a tendency to go for the green belt and greenfield sites. I hope that, as part of pushing targets down to a local level, we can put a duty on Ministers to ensure that we explore every possible brownfield site first and that those are built on before we touch the precious green belt.

[Gordon Henderson]

My right hon. Friend is perfectly right. I mentioned a number of developments in my area, one of which is on a brownfield site. We should be pressing to make sure that is done first, before we allow any other planning applications to be approved.

In thinking about mandatory housing targets, I urge the Minister and her colleagues to look sympathetically at new clause 21 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which will be debated on Report, which would prohibit mandatory targets.

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this debate on such an important topic and thank him the constructive way in which he has approached it.

As constituency MPs, everyone here appreciates that housing and the supply of housing really matter to every single community, and my hon. Friend will recognise that it is simultaneously a local and a national issue. Planning and the location of future developments is something that I know he cares incredibly deeply about, so I am pleased to have the opportunity today—in place of the Housing Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer)—to speak to hon. Members about how we in Government are approaching housing targets and the wider planning system.

Without wanting to start the debate by immediately dampening expectations, I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey will know that, given the Secretary of State’s role in the planning system, I cannot comment on the specifics of any individual plans or proposals, including those of the Swale local plan. On some of my hon. Friend’s specific points, I agree with him that the duty to co-operate has not worked effectively. That is why it is being abolished through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, although we are not proposing to go back to the pre-2011 system of regional spatial strategies, because they were produced by bodies that were inaccessible and unaccountable to local communities. I recognise that there are opportunities for more strategic plan making. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill enables spatial development strategies to be produced in all parts of the country on a voluntary basis, so that areas such as my hon. Friend’s, which work well together and would find such a strategic planning tool useful, can produce a strategic plan.

I am grateful to hon. Members from across the Chamber, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for sharing their concerns about housing targets, which I know are shared by Members from across the House, including many who are not present in this debate. My hon. and right hon. Friends will know that in 2018 we introduced a standard method for assessing local housing need, to make the process of identifying the number of homes needed in an area simple, quick and transparent. That standard method for assessing housing need does not set a target. It is used by councils to inform the preparation of their local plans. Councils decide their own housing requirement once they have considered their ability to meet their own needs in their area.

That process includes factoring in local circumstances and constraints, and working with neighbouring authorities if it would be better or more appropriate for needs to be met elsewhere. It is a process that recognises that not everywhere will be able to meet their housing need in full. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey will have seen that the Levelling Up Secretary recently confirmed that we plan to stick to the overarching target of building 300,000 homes a year. However, in the same breath he also affirmed our intention to be straight with people on the real challenges that areas face with building these homes—challenges with the costs of materials and increasing challenges with a tight labour market that constrains building.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey was right to highlight some of the issues that could arise from development in any area, such as increased demand on public services and more congested roads. We recognise the pressure that this creates, so the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill recognises it too.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out her case. When it comes to housing, I think we all recognise that there are parts of our constituencies where regeneration could really work. Will the Government commit to ensuring sufficient money to remediate brownfield sites, which I believe will be crucial to meeting the housing needs of our local communities?

[Dehenna Davison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point. She will know that there are existing funds available for brownfield development. The second round of that fund will be opening up imminently—I am glancing over at my officials and hoping for a nod—[Interruption]—I am getting a nod; excellent—in order for local areas to make the most of that to aid them in their brownfield redevelopment processes as well.

On infrastructure and the pressures on infrastructure, through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill we are looking to create a levy to ensure that infrastructure such as schools, GP surgeries and new roads are provided in a more effective, transparent and efficient manner.

[Gordon Henderson]

That point has been made to me before by a previous Minister. It is all very well saying that the infrastructure levy will provide GP surgeries, but there is no point having the surgeries unless there are doctors to put in there. There has to be a recognition that no planning of houses should be allowed unless and until we are provided with the doctors we require.

[Dehenna Davison]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. GP numbers is something we are all concerned about. That is why the Department of Health and Social Care is taking measures to recruit more GPs right across the board. That is part of the answer, but he is right to raise concerns on the specific planning issues, and I will pass those on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) raised the issue of infrastructure and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. As part of the Bill, local authorities will be required to prepare an infrastructure delivery strategy, which will make it clearer to communities what infrastructure will be provided and when.

I believe our focus is sometimes too squarely on the numbers side of the equation, which means that we lose sight of the end goal. Numbers do, of course, matter. Thanks to the steps we took with industry at the start of the pandemic, we were able to keep home building going. We built over 216,000 new homes in 2020-21, a figure that was just a small dip from the previous year. In the circumstances, that is quite incredible. Since 2010, over 2 million additional homes have been delivered, including over 598,000 affordable homes—something that I know is on the minds of people across the country, particularly younger people hoping to get on the housing ladder for the first time.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I appreciate what the Minister is setting out. In my constituency, because of the drive to meet unrealistic housing targets, we are having to close a successful working port to make room for flats. Companies such as ArcelorMittal and clean energy generation companies are being displaced to facilitate this drive for housing targets. Instead, we could look at the commercial development of the area and provide not only the infrastructure, but also the jobs for those who are going to live in those houses.

[Dehenna Davison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. I had the pleasure of briefly visiting her constituency this morning and would be grateful for the opportunity to sit down with her and discuss this further, given the local nuances involved.

The house building figures we have seen in recent years have defied expectation. It is no secret that reaching 300,000 homes a year has been an uphill challenge. Our focus in Government is on accelerating delivery so that we can make the dream of home ownership a reality for more people.

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

We would all like the dream of home ownership to be a reality. In my constituency, one of the biggest concerns of residents is that, because the local authority is trying to meet the housing target that has been put on them, they are losing their green spaces, such as Coundon Wedge. This is having a considerable impact on the wellbeing of so many people who use green spaces like that. It would be great to hear whether the Minister would meet with me to look at Coventry’s figures, because currently the Office for National Statistics projections are completely off the mark.

[Dehenna Davison]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising those concerns about her constituency. I would certainly be willing to sit down with her and discuss this further, although it might be worth me asking my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire instead, given that this sits more closely within her brief.

Back on house building, I said that it is important that we build the numbers, but crucially, and as I think today’s debate has highlighted, it is also about making sure that the homes are being built in the places where they are most needed—the places where people want to live and the places where people want to work. We want these decisions about homes to be driven locally, and we want to get more local plans in place to deliver the homes we need, and we will set out our approach on planning for housing in due course.

I know I am preaching to the converted when it comes to the need to modernise our planning system, and I think all MPs understand and get that we need a planning regime that is fit for 2022. That was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), who is no longer in his place, but who spoke about changes in working patterns as a result of the pandemic and how that should be reflected in the planning system. I will certainly raise that point with the Minister for Housing when I see her.

I also understand that Members are frustrated—they are right to be frustrated—that this has been under discussion not just for months, but for years. We need more houses, and that obviously brings with it an obligation on us in Government to be frank and straight with people that building more houses has implications, both positive and sometimes negative. In some places, it will cause tension, and in some places, it will be a source of relief, but it is our job to be willing to have that dialogue, regardless of how difficult it may be. I am not sure that Governments of all colours have always approached these kinds of conversations in the most productive way. The inconvenient truth is that, for the best part of two decades, demand has outstripped the supply of homes.

[Wendy Morton]

I am conscious of time, but very briefly, I think we all understand that we need more homes and more houses, but there is a really important point here about the need to take communities with us and to make sure that the houses are built in the right place, with the right infrastructure ready to support them.

[Dehenna Davison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her contribution and her passion on this subject, which I know she has spoken about for many, many years.

Through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—I will talk about it quickly, recognising that I do not have much time left, so that might have to be the last intervention I take—we are planning to simplify the planning system and, in doing so, end outdated practices that slow down community regeneration. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey mentioned the amendments on the table, which will be debated in Parliament. I am certainly happy to sit down with him and discuss new clause 21 or recommend that the Minister for Housing does so, if she has not already. I hope that colleagues who have been constructive so far will support the Bill’s overall passage.

If we can get our planning regime right, we can unlock a huge amount of economic growth locally. We want to help local authorities to adopt and implement the best planning approaches for their areas. To achieve that, local authorities will need to be able to better attract and retain planners, as was raised by my hon. Friend, and we want to work further with the sector on that. He was right to highlight that as one of the major challenges facing authorities at the moment.

To incentivise plan production and to ensure that newly produced plans are not undermined, the Government intend to make it clear that authorities do not have to maintain a five-year supply of land for housing where they have an up-to-date plan. As Members would expect, we plan to consult on that. The new measures should have a minimal impact on housing supply, given that newly produced plans will contain up-to-date allocations of land for development, but that will also send a signal that the Government are backing a plan-led approach, provided that those plans are up to date.

I finish by thanking my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate and thanking all Members present for their helpful contributions. I am grateful to him for using this debate to press home the concerns that he and many of his constituents have regarding developments in Sittingbourne and Sheppey. There is no getting around the fact that we are in a difficult economic time. We face headwinds from all angles—energy, inflation and interest rate rises—and those have knock-on implications for everything that the Government do, but to my mind, they only serve to underline the need to build more homes and to give generation rent the chance to become generation buy. That is why we have to stand by our commitment to dramatically ramp up housing supply and our manifesto pledge to build a million new homes within the first term of this Parliament. I will leave it there because the clock is ticking, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate today.

Question put and agreed to.

North Wales Main Line

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the strategic importance of the North Wales main line.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. In securing this debate, I had two aims in mind: first, to establish the importance of the north Wales main line within the context of the manifesto commitment to levelling up; and, secondly, to set out why investment in the north Wales main line should be a priority for the UK and in Wales.

In my first words in Parliament, delivered a month after being elected to represent the people of Aberconwy, I highlighted how:

“In the past 20 years, the people of north Wales, and the people of Aberconwy, have grown used to being overlooked and underfunded”.—[Official Report, 15 January 2020; Vol. 669, c. 103.]

Members will recall that, in December 2019, constituencies and communities across north Wales had elected—if hon. Members will forgive me—a blue wall of Welsh Conservative MPs, which stretched from Clwyd South and Wrexham in the east right across to Ynys Môn in the west. Like all my Conservative colleagues in north Wales, I am determined to secure the opportunities of the levelling-up agenda, which was at the heart of the 2019 manifesto. It is inevitable, then, that much of our focus has been on the strategic north Wales coast main line. We seek investment for it as a key part of securing levelling up in north Wales.

The disparity in investment in rail infrastructure over the last two decades between north Wales and south Wales and other parts of the UK is clear. In June 2020, the electrification of the London Paddington to Cardiff line was completed. Thanks to that, it is possible to increase the capacity on that line by running a greater number of services, with new bimodal electric-diesel rolling stock. In turn, this has allowed for lower ticket fares due to economies of scale and lower running costs. Furthermore, it has improved the environmental footprint of each journey on that line.

Of course, south Wales is already benefiting too from £734 million of investment in the South Wales Metro, which is due to be completed by the end of 2023. This infrastructure project consists of the electrification of the Core Valleys lines and a further £50 million investment in the integration of the Cardiff Capital Region Metro. By contrast, across north Wales, the only investment in recent decades that we can speak of is the re-signalling between Chester and Llandudno Junction in my constituency, which was completed in 2015. In fact, the last great infrastructure investments across north Wales have been the development of the A55 road.

There was of course the construction of the Conwy tunnel in the late 1980s—admittedly, at the time it was the largest engineering project in Europe—and then the completion of the dual carriageway of the A55 across the Isle of Anglesey, or Ynys Môn, in 2000. These works removed crippling bottlenecks in Conwy and across the island, and allowed for a significant increase in capacity at the port of Holyhead. Irish Ferries’ MV Ulysses arrived, which at the time was the largest roll-on roll-off vehicle ferry in service in the world, and shortly after came the arrival of Stena Lines’ Stena Adventurer.

In recent months, we have seen more evidence of this disparity. The consequences of north Wales being overlooked and underfunded have been highlighted in two incidents: the closure by the Welsh Government of the Menai suspension bridge between Anglesey and the mainland, and the effective relegation of the north Wales coast main line to branch-line status by the withdrawal of through-train services from Holyhead to London.

For so many across north Wales, levelling up is so much more than the investment, jobs and opportunities that it promises. It is something that I have personal experience of: the chance to stay at home in our communities. I am a proud Welshman—born, raised and schooled in Bangor—but like so many of my friends and so many who I speak to today, we still have to choose to move away to pursue a career. Levelling up would mean it would not have to be that way.

Having established—I hope—an imperative for levelling up for north Wales, I turn to some of the specific impacts of investment in the north Wales main line. First, the line is a critical piece of UK infrastructure. It is essential cross-border infrastructure linking England to Wales, as identified by Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity review. It runs from Holyhead via Chester to Crewe, where it joins the west coast main line and connects directly to London. It is also vital in connecting us to the island of Ireland, including connecting Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom. It does so through the port of Holyhead, which is the UK’s main port to Ireland and its second-busiest roll-on roll-off port.

Secondly, investment will maximise returns on the UK Government’s investments in High Speed 2. This is a really important point. The England and Wales designation of HS2 relies on investment in the links from Crewe to north Wales. The Welsh Government have disputed that, and claimed an estimated £5 billion as a Barnett consequential for investment in England where the benefits have not been realised in Wales. That claim can be rebuffed properly based on benefits to north Wales.

Thirdly, rail investment would put London within three hours of the university city of Bangor, and within two hours of north-east Wales. That would transform inward private investment and enable remote working for the majority of the population of north Wales, in particular the more deprived parts of north-west Wales. Further investment would promote the advanced manufacturing cluster, which exists across north-east Wales, Cheshire and Wirral. This leading global advanced manufacturing cluster has an economic output of £35 billion per annum. Better quality, faster access to London via rail will unlock further private sector investment and growth for this sector.

Investment will also help deliver on the promise to decarbonise our economy. The line is not as well used as it could be. Some 680,000 residents of north Wales rely on it for movements within north Wales and into England—for business, for pleasure, for contact with family and friends, and for public services. Higher service levels, line speeds and rolling stock, and lower-than-average fare levels, would result in higher usage, as they have done in south Wales. It is important that, in addition to fulfilling our manifesto commitment to levelling up, we invest to help bring us closer to our aim of decarbonising our economy.

As it stands, north Wales has one of the lowest usage rates for public transport, and rail in particular, which is perhaps evidence enough of the poor performance of public transport in comparison with road travel. Electrification of the main line would therefore make an invaluable contribution to reducing the carbon footprint of travel across north Wales. I hope I have made the clear case that not only is north Wales due a levelling up, but the impact of that levelling up is realistic and measurable. The corporate and commercial development of north Wales would benefit the entire community.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

There are a couple of Back Benchers wanting to speak. I remind them that we will go to the Front Benchers no later than 5.15 pm. It would be helpful if the Minister could remember that Robin Millar has a couple of minutes to wind up too.

16:39

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. As was eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), north Wales transport infrastructure is of strategic importance to the entire United Kingdom, and investment in it is a priority for Wales, for the UK, and for me as the MP representing the north Wales constituency of Clwyd South. My hon. Friend talked about how trains were vital to him because he grew up in north Wales. The same was true for me; I grew up just a few miles south of Clwyd South in rural Wales, where trains have been my lifeline for as long as I can remember.

This debate is also important given the need for step-free access at Ruabon station in my constituency. I am grateful for the support of the Department for Transport, which included a visit by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), to Ruabon station in April last year. I am pleased that, in September this year, following the Department’s call for nominations and my written support, Ruabon was nominated for possible inclusion in the next round of the Access for All programme, covering control period 7, which I understand will begin in April 2024 and last for five years.

Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity review, which was published in November 2021, highlighted the strategic significance of transport infrastructure across north Wales to the UK through its connections to Northern Ireland and the Republic via Holyhead, the busiest port in Wales and the second busiest roll-on roll-off shipping port in the United Kingdom. His report recommended the improvement of the north Wales coast main line, for faster journey times, more resilience and greater capacity. That was placed ahead of other projects in Wales, such as improving journey times and capacity between Cardiff and the midlands.

Such investment will maximise returns on the UK Government’s investments in HS2. The England and Wales designation of HS2 relies on investments in the links from Crewe to north Wales. The Welsh Government, who dispute that, have claimed an estimated £5 billion as a Barnett consequential—a claim that was rebuffed based on the benefits to north Wales.

These investments will level up north Wales by attracting investment and higher-skilled jobs. That will transform inward investment and remote working for the whole of north Wales, including my constituency of Clwyd South. It will further promote the advanced manufacturing cluster across north-east Wales, Cheshire and Wirral, which is vital to my constituents. It is one of the top 10 global advanced manufacturing clusters, and has an economic output of £35 billion per annum. Better-quality, faster rail access to London will unlock further investment and growth in that sector, as well as providing an opportunity to open up the vital north Wales tourism sector. Areas such as Clwyd South have developed an international reputation for tourism. I am pleased that Clwyd South’s successful bid to the UK Government’s levelling-up fund has further strengthened the promotion of tourism, and I am keen to see it flourish further.

Finally, such investments will deliver benefits of decarbonisation through electrification, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy said. The electrification of the north Wales line is key to reducing the carbon footprint of the traffic, and vital to our meeting our decarbonisation commitments. The infrastructure of north Wales has been overlooked and underfunded by the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff Bay for far too long. As was mentioned earlier, the last major step change was the Conwy tunnel, which opened in 1991—many years ago—and was the biggest construction project in Europe at the time.

Today, the rolling stock on north Wales lines is ageing and struggles to deliver a reliable service. It is unreliable and frequently overcrowded. The north Wales coast line has been relegated to unofficial branch line status by a failure to provide a reliable direct service to London. Roads offer little relief: they are overwhelmed daily, and Telford’s crossing to Anglesey, the Menai bridge, is closed for three months of emergency repairs. The Welsh Government’s response has been to suspend all new road building and improvements. It is imperative that residents, communities and businesses throughout north Wales are prioritised for investment to make a step change in rail services.

16:45

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) for calling this important debate. He is an assiduous champion of his constituents. I am honoured to follow an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes).

My dad had to leave Wales to find work, and I am determined to bring good-quality jobs to Ynys Môn so that our young people do not have to leave their community, their culture and their Welsh language. I am working hard every day to bring jobs and investment to Ynys Môn and I have been successful, bringing in over £200 million of investment and hundreds of jobs, including £4.8 million for the Holyhead hydrogen hub, £45 million for the His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs inland border facility in Holyhead, and a record £175 million in investment in RAF Valley. But I am not stopping there: I set up and chair the Anglesey freeport bidding consortium—our bid for Anglesey to be a freeport will be submitted on 24 November—and, as chair of the nuclear delivery group, I am determined to bring new nuclear to Wylfa.

As my colleagues have mentioned, Holyhead is the second busiest ro-ro port in the UK and Stena is one of the largest employers on the island, yet there is only one direct train a day to Holyhead from London. To attract the investment that Ynys Môn so desperately needs, I need to be able to offer companies good transport links. Mona airport has closed, the Menai bridge is closed for urgent repairs, and the Britannia bridge is also closed for periods at night for maintenance work. Therefore, the rail link to the island, particularly the port of Holyhead, is vital.

The UK Government are committed to levelling up, and that means attracting investment and good-quality jobs. I am so proud that Anglesey is known as energy island, with wind, wave, tidal, solar, hydrogen and hopefully new nuclear. I am so proud that Bangor University on my doorstep has been voted one of the UK’s top five universities. Ynys Môn is one of the best constituencies in the UK—once you get there.

I need the Minister’s help. Businesses and people across Anglesey need a reliable and frequent train service to Holyhead. Indeed, Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity review highlighted the strategic significance of the transport infrastructure across north Wales for the UK through its connections to Northern Ireland and the Republic via Holyhead, the busiest port in Wales and the second busiest ro-ro port in the UK.

Avanti West Coast has a woeful track record and reputation in north Wales, bringing misery on a daily basis to thousands of people trying to get to work or school, or simply trying to live their lives. Like many others, I was shocked when, at the beginning of October, the UK Government awarded First Trenitalia West Coast Rail Ltd a short extension to its current contract to continue to operate the Avanti West Coast contract until 1 April 2023. That was incredibly disappointing for me, my colleagues and my constituents, who have suffered train services that are well below par for the past two and a half years. Avanti West Coast has committed to delivering around 90% of its pre-pandemic timetable from 11 December, with five direct trains a day from London to Holyhead and four at weekends. I have no faith that Avanti will be able to deliver that timetable.

The issue seems to be an overreliance on the good will of Avanti drivers volunteering to work overtime. I respectfully ask the Minister to join me in meeting Avanti train drivers to hear from them directly about their working conditions and why they are not volunteering to work overtime. I would be happy to facilitate the meeting in Holyhead, where my home is. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister in considerable detail how he plans to ensure that the north Wales service will be of an acceptable standard after 11 December, so that I can report back to the many constituents who have contacted me in frustration. I ask that Avanti’s performance is closely monitored over the next few months and that no further extension is granted on 1 April 2023 unless there is a significant improvement in its services.

I believe that Avanti West Coast does not have the capacity or competence to provide the sort of service that my constituents and people across north Wales expect, and I very much hope that the Minister will heed these representations. I have applied for a Backbench Business debate so that we can have a proper, cross-party, three-hour debate on the Floor of the House to share the frustrations of our constituents and push the Government for assurances that Avanti will deliver the reliable and frequent service our constituents demand and deserve.

16:49

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I welcome the new Rail Minister to his place. This is the first time we are meeting across the Dispatch Box, so to speak, but given his track record as a very capable Chairman of the Transport Committee, he will no doubt look very carefully at all these various issues. I know that we will work together where possible for the betterment of our railways and our nation. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar)—I will go so far as to call him my hon. Friend—on bringing forward this important debate so that we can discuss and address the strategic importance of the north Wales main line.

We face the longest recession for 100 years. Unemployment is set to double. The UK is the only leading economy that is shrinking. The Conservative party’s kamikaze mini-Budget cost the country at least £30 billion and counting. Given that bleak context, we look to the Government to boost growth.

The Welsh Government get it. Wales’s leaders understand the economic need to keep the railways running and to invest where possible, committing £800 million to rail and ensuring that 95% of rail journeys in Wales and its borders are on new trains, with more than half of those trains assembled in Wales and delivered by a publicly owned train operating company. When the Chancellor gets to his feet on Thursday, he must commit to linking our nations and regions, speeding up journey times, modernising stations and boosting growth.

As was eloquently highlighted by the hon. Members for Aberconwy, for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), the north Wales main line drives growth and sees significant cross-border travel, yet Ministers treat it like a neglected branch line and take its passengers for fools.

I recently met the Growth Track 360 partnership in the north-west, which is made up of businesses and local authority leaders from north Wales, the Wirral, Cheshire and Chester. Alongside more investment for the Mersey Dee Alliance, the partnership has been calling for electrification. Where is it? It is important not just for connectivity but for the climate. Can the Government explain why they completed just 2 km of track electrification in that area last year? At the rate they are going, they will not meet their own net zero rail target until past the year 2100—almost 50 years late.

What about HS2? Ministers have thrown the project into utter chaos. As cuts loom, there is considerable concern that the number of trains per hour planned to run from north Wales to Crewe will be drastically reduced. As I am sure the hon. Member for Aberconwy would agree, we cannot stand idly by and let that happen. We need answers now. I hope the Minister can clarify that such cuts will not take place in preparation for the Chancellor’s autumn statement this Thursday.

Finally, let me turn to the Avanti in the room, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. It is astonishing that Ministers have rewarded Avanti with an extension to its franchise. Ask any Avanti passenger who has waited for trains that never come, been stranded miles from home, or been rammed like cattle into carriages, corridors and toilets, “Should Avanti be rewarded with more public money?” and they will say, “Of course not.” With the fewest trains on time, failure to train new drivers and more complaints than any other operator in our nation, Avanti has stripped back services to and from north Wales to virtually nothing. Some days, there is just one train to London. To call it a skeleton service is an insult to skeletons. Why on earth was such failure rewarded?

[Robin Millar]

I thank the hon. Member for his speech, much of which I support entirely. Will he join me in urging the Minister, as I have done before in this place, to consider, at some suitable point in the future, rebranding the franchise as the north Wales and west coast main line service? That would properly reflect the strategic importance of the north Wales part of the franchise.

[Mr Dhesi]

That suggestion definitely needs to be looked at. At the moment, the franchise is an absolute disaster. Having recently visited the area on a family holiday to Snowdonia, I can attest to the fact that many of the good people of north Wales feel that they are being neglected, so if that is what it takes, then that is what needs to happen. At the moment, Avanti is doing a huge disservice to the good people of north Wales.

Does the Minister agree that if Avanti continues to fail passengers in December, it must be stripped of its franchise immediately? The people of north Wales cannot endure more months of Avanti’s failure. They deserve a world-class railway. Today, on this Government’s watch, they are getting a third-class shambles.

16:56

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, as it was to serve as your Parliamentary Private Secretary all those years ago—now look what has happened. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) for securing this important debate on the strategic importance of the north Wales main line, and for the passionate manner in which he made his case.

I thank my hon. Friends the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) for their contributions. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), who is unable to speak due to his ministerial position but has been speaking to me and representing his constituents. I thank the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for whom I have always had a warm regard—I hope that continues, notwithstanding our various positions—for his kind welcome. I hope that we continue to work well.

In responding to the debate, I will speak first about Welsh investment and what is being done to invest in north Wales. I will then speak to the situation with Avanti. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn asked me to give some detail about that, and I hope that I can do so.

On Welsh investment, during the current railway investment control period, which covers 2019 to 2024, a record £2 billion will be spent in Wales by Network Rail. Of that, nearly £1.2 billion will be spent on renewing and upgrading the infrastructure to meet current and future needs. In addition, through the rail network enhancements pipeline, we continue to deliver ambitious enhancements to the rail network, investing in key priorities with an unrelenting focus on levelling up our nation and ensuring that all communities have the connections they need to support growth and prosperity.

By way of example, Network Rail is currently finalising an outline business case for upgrading the north Wales main line between Chester and Holyhead, and improving journey times between north Wales, the north-west of England and other major UK centres. We have this year delivered an upgrade to the digital signalling system on the Cambrian line, supporting the transformation of passenger experience and enabling the operation of state-of-the-art new trains. Those trains are currently undergoing testing and will soon be introduced on the line, as well as on other routes across Wales. We expect to be in a position to publish an update to RNEP, confirming the status of all enhancement schemes, very shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy has highlighted the findings of Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity Review. The Government are grateful to Sir Peter for his work, and we are considering his 19 recommendations carefully. As Sir Peter has highlighted, in most cases his report does not contain new detailed infrastructure proposals. Instead, he points the way to further work, which should better identify where, when and what to invest in for the best results for people across the United Kingdom.

In anticipation of Sir Peter’s recommendations, the Government set aside further funding at spending review 2021 to add to the £20 million previously allocated to take forward some of this essential development work. The funding will set us on the right path to developing the best infrastructure development options to strengthen our main transport arteries for people and businesses across the UK.

We have been discussing Sir Peter’s recommendations and the opportunities for development funding with the devolved Administrations to identify the solutions that work best for the people of the UK. We are pleased that the Welsh Government agree with Sir Peter’s recommendations and we are discussing with them how we can best support his work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South mentioned the impact of HS2 on north Wales. HS2 will free up capacity on the existing west coast main line and enable faster journey times from the rest of Great Britain to both north and south Wales via new interchange opportunities. Journey times from many places in north Wales to London could be reduced to about two hours and 15 minutes, changing at Crewe station.

Hon. Members have ably addressed the reduction in Avanti services. I share and recognise their frustration, but want to be clear about the reasons behind the reduction and the action the Government have taken to mitigate the effects on passengers where possible. It is long-standing practice for rail operators to use a degree of rest-day working to operate the normal timetable, to the mutual benefit of companies and staff. It gives companies a degree of flexibility to cover for things such as staff sicknesses and holidays, and it gives staff the opportunity to earn additional money should they wish.

Avanti, in common with many other companies in the rail sector and beyond, has experienced a range of difficulties in responding to the pandemic. Each rail operator is unique and the impacts fell differently across them all. In Avanti’s case, they included a higher than expected retirement rate, restrictions on training that required two people in a cab and a number of drivers who needed retraining when they returned from an extended period of shielding. Approximately 15% of Avanti’s driver workforce were unable to work for varying degrees of time during the pandemic due to being clinically extremely vulnerable and requiring partial or full retraining on returning to work. That contributed to a position where the company was relatively dependent on rest-day working, as has been pointed out.

None of that explanation is to exclude the operator’s responsibility to manage its operation effectively, but it is important that we hold it to account for what it is responsible for, and do not seek to hold it to account for matters outside its control. The Department is considering that carefully, under the terms of the contract.

On 30 July this year, Avanti experienced immediate and near-total cessation of drivers volunteering to work passenger trains on rest days. That left Avanti unable to operate its full timetable and facing a choice of whether to try, day by day, to run what it could, with the inevitable short-notice cancellations, or to reduce the timetable to a level operable without overtime.

That was a difficult and invidious choice, but I am sure that Members will appreciate that the impact of short-notice cancellations is particularly bad for passengers. It is not possible for passengers to plan around them as they do not know in advance what will be cancelled, so it leads to late journeys and overcrowded trains. While that is bad for anyone, it is particularly bad for passengers who may have booked assistance, be unable to stand or be travelling with children, for example.

The alternative—reducing the timetable—is also highly disruptive, and that case has been made, but it is honest with passengers and gives them a chance to try to make alternative plans. That approach has reduced cancellations of about 25% of the service in late July and early August to about 5% today.

Members in today’s debate have made the point that the impact on north Wales has been particularly severe because the majority of through trains to London have been replaced by a shuttle to Crewe. Avanti has sought to mitigate the situation by adding more stops at Crewe on its other services to improve the interchange, but I acknowledge the point and the particular impact the situation has had on passengers travelling to and from north Wales.

[Virginia Crosbie]

Will the Minister take me up on my offer of coming to Holyhead, having a panad and sitting down with the train drivers to hear at first hand about how their working practices impact them on a daily basis?

[Huw Merriman]

I assure my hon. Friend that I had not forgotten that ask—I will answer it now instead of later. I am keen in my new role to meet as many members of the rail workforce as I can, as far across the nation as I can. I will be delighted to join her in Holyhead, meet those drivers and have a look around her constituency to see the impact she has so ably described. I look forward to having a good, honest conversation with the drivers. I always worked well with the rail force in my previous role, and hope I can do so again in my current one.

Let me turn to service restoration plans. Nearly 100 drivers will have entered service with Avanti between April and December this year, comprising new recruits and those who have completed the required retraining. As they have become available to work, Avanti started to introduce additional services where they are most needed, and where train crew resources allow. So far, those have been focused on London to Birmingham and London to Manchester. Avanti plans a further increase in December, at the next major timetable change. That will see the majority of direct north Wales services restored, with five trains a day in each direction between Holyhead and London, which I know Members and their constituents will welcome.

I want to see Avanti’s plan to increase services succeed, so that passengers travelling to and from north Wales get the experience they deserve. My officials are holding weekly meetings with Avanti senior management, and are reviewing Avanti’s progress against the plan and handling of risks. They are reporting to the Secretary of State and to me as Rail Minister.

I have also met Steve Montgomery, who is managing director for rail at FirstGroup, the ultimate parent company. The Office of Rail and Road—the independent regulator—and Network Rail’s programme management office have both reviewed Avanti’s plans, and are content. I hope that independence gives hon. Members some reassurance.

It is important to be clear that many of these factors are not in Avanti’s control. Crucially, this improvement will require the support of the trade unions. It is important to modernise the railway to phase out old-fashioned ways of working, improve people’s journeys, help make trains more reliable and create savings that can provide funding towards a pay rise for staff.

Finally, I turn to the contract that Avanti has with the Department, which I know has been a matter of interest for many across the House. On 7 October, the Department entered into a short-term extension of six months to 1 April 2023. That short-term extension will allow the Avanti side of the business to roll out its recovery plan. The Department will consider Avanti’s performance, while officials finalise a national rail contract for consideration.

I conclude by thanking you, Ms McVey, and all hon. Members. I hope they have been reassured by the updates I have been able to give them. I look forward to working with all my colleagues across the House and in north Wales, so that we can give them the rail services they need.

17:07

[Robin Millar]

I beg your indulgence, Ms McVey, to make a point in response to the Minister. I should have welcomed him to his new place—as gamekeeper, not poacher. I thank him for his comments. This has been a brief but pointed debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) for highlighting the impact that investment would have on rural communities and tourism, as well as the Energy Island programme on Ynys Môn and the benefits it will bring to businesses there.

I make the point to the Minister that Wales works on an east-west basis. Money spent in one part of Wales does not always benefit the whole of Wales. North and south Wales are very distinct and different parts. Sir Peter Hendy in his review prioritised investment in the north Wales main line. Realising the benefits of HS2 and avoiding an expensive bill from the Welsh Government only underline the importance of priority investment in the north Wales main line. The positive impacts on residents, visitors, students, business and the environment have all been set out for that investment.

I note what the Minister said about the control period, the £1.2 billion additional investment in infrastructure, and the work on the RNEP. I welcome the development of a business case for Chester to Holyhead, and look forward to the update of the RNEP.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the strategic importance of the North Wales main line.

17:09

Sitting adjourned.